LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

%p,.. Gapgrlg^t fa 

. Shelf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 



SOME 
AMEEICAN 

CHUECHMEN 



/ 

40REH0USE 



BY / 




nOV 25 1892 

MILWAUKEE: 

The Young Churchman Co. 

1892. 

I 



| oS c o»o* ES5 






^ 



COPYRIGHT, 1892, 

BY 

THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 



TO 

She ft fai, Jsaac %m gtchotson, g.&l., 

BISHOP OF MILWAUKEE, 

Who in His Own Person Combines a Goodly Number op 

Those Elements which Make up a Staunch, 

Able and True Leader among 

Mmzxxzan (Eljurcljrmstt, 

THIS BOOK IS KESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, 

BY 

THE AUTHOR. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Pkeface, 

I. Samuel Seabury, 

The First American Bishop 

II. William White, 

The First Bishop of Pennsylvania 

III. John Henry Hob art 

Bishop of New York . 

IV. Philander Chase, 

The Pioneer Missionary 

V. George Washington Doane, 
Bishop of New Jersey 

VI. John Henry Hopkins, 
Bishop of Vermont 

VII. Jackson Kemper, 

First Bishop of Wisconsin . 

VIII. William Augustus Muhlenberg, 
The Christian Educator 

IX. James Lloyd Breck, 

One of the Founders of Nashotah 

X. James DeKoven, 

Warden of Racine College . 

Index . . . . ■ . 



Page. 

1 



21 

29 

53 

65 

89 

109 

125 

139 

157 
235 



PREFACE. 



IT seems unfortunate, that so little is recorded in per- 
manent form, of those characters who have played 
the greatest parts in the history of the American Church. 
Not only has the Church in this country, during the 
brief period of her history, produced men of intellect- 
ual and administrative ability, but it seems, upon in- 
vestigation, that the number of men who might really 
be termed great, has been not a few. Of these, strange 
to say, the younger generation, with whom the author 
is numbered, know almost nothing ; and the few works 
of history and biography which cover the period of 
their lives, are, for the most part, so obscure and scarce, 
that the controversies and the conflicts, with the men 
who, under the Almighty Head, made the Church 
what it is to-day, are now well-nigh forgotten while 
there are yet those living who were contemporaries with 
them. 

Those two early founders, Bishops Seabury and 
White, may be said to be exceptions to this rule ; and 
as the story of their lives and work has been frequently 
told and is within easy reach of any who would seek it, 
it has seemed best to devote but little space to each ; 
while yet no work on the worthies of the American 
Church, would be complete without referring to them. 

No apology, the author believes, is necessary for the 
proportionately great amount of space devoted to the 
life of DeKoven, since his brilliant career has never 
before been sketched, and the material might not be 



8 PEEFACE. 

accessible to most persons. Yet his peer can hardly be 
found, even in the galaxy of brilliant names which 
make up the roll of the Church's saints. 

To enumerate all the works consulted in the com- 
pilation of this volume, does not seem necessary; yet not 
to name those which have been most freely drawn upon 
would be ungrateful indeed. Some of them are the 
following : 

The Journals of General Convention, 1785-1835, compiled 
by the Bishop of Iowa. 

Historical Notes and Documents; by the Bishop of Iowa. 

A History of the American Episcopal Church ; by the Rev. 
S. D. McConnell, D. D. 

Students' History of the Church of England; by the Rev. 
George G. Perry. 

Memoirs of Bishop White. 

McVickar's Life of Bishop Hobart. 

Memoirs of Bishop Chase. 

Life of Bishop Chase; by the Rev. John N. Norton, D. D. 

Memoirs of Bishop George Washington Doane; edited by 
his son, William Croswell Doane, Bishop of Albany. 

History of the Church in Burlington, N. J.; by the Rev. 
George Morgan Hills, D. D. 

Life of Bishop Hopkins; by his son, John Henry Hopkins, 
D. D. 

Files of the Nashotah Scholiast, containing several histor- 
ical series relating to Bishop Kemper and Dr. DeKoven. 

Life of Dr. Muhlenberg ; by Anne Ayres 

Life of Dr. Muhlenberg ; by William Wilberforce Newton, 
D. D. 

Life of James Lloyd Breck ; by his brother, Charles Breck, 
D. D. 

Memoir of Bishop Welles; by the Rev. S. S. Burleson. 

Journals of General Convention. 

Debates in General Convention. 

Files of the Milwaukee Sentinel. 

Official documents of Racine College. 

Several numbers of the Church Eclectic. 

Pamphlets and other documents relating to the episcopal 
elections in Wisconsin and Illinois. 

Diocesan Journals of Wisconsin, Illinois and Massachusetts. 




SAMUEL SEABURY 
Bishop of Connecticut. 



SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN, 



(I.) SAMUEL SEABUEY 

THE FIRST AMERICAN BISHOP. 

X yl 7HAT a strange thing is the verdict of 
history ! The most unlikely man, in 
1776, to make his impress felt, second to none 
other, upon the American Church for all time, 
was Dr. Samuel Seabury, an S. P. G. missionary 
at West Chester, New York. He it was, how- 
ever, who, more than any other one man, gave 
to the American Church its beautiful service 
for the Holy Communion, patterned rather after 
the Scotch than after the English Liturgy. 

Dr. Seabury was a native of North Groton, 
Connecticut, the son of an S. P. GL missionary, 
and was born in 1729. He early assisted his 
father as a lay reader, and in August, 1752, he 
braved the long, hard and expensive journey 



10 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

across the Atlantic and entered the University 
of Edinburgh for the study of medicine, intend- 
ing to use the knowledge thus gained in con- 
nection with the work of the ministry. We 
may readily believe that it was during this res- 
idence in Scotland that he obtained his close 
knowledge of the persecuted Church in that 
land. He was ordained to the diaconate on the 
21st of December, 1753, by the Bishop of Lin- 
coln (Thomas), acting for the Bishop of London, 
who exercised, nominally, episcopal supervis- 
ion over America. Two days later, Dr. Seabury 
was advanced to the priesthood by the Bishop 
of Carlisle (Osbaldeston), who also acted for the 
Bishop of London. 

Returning to America, he was successively 
rector of Christ Church, New Brunswick, New 
Jersey ; Grace Church, Jamaica, Long Island ; 
and S. Peter's, West Chester, New York. The 
troubles of the Revolution found in Dr. Sea- 
bury an ardent supporter of the British Crown. 
With two friends he established a literary bu- 
reau for advocating the British claims. It is 
not strange that he fell under the ban, and was 
arrested by the Continental authorities. He 



SAMUEL SEABURY. 11 

escaped, however, joined the British in Long 
Island, and became a chaplain in the British 
army. Up to the time of his death, he received 
the regular half-pay of a retired chaplain from 
the British Crown. 

So it was, that when the peace was finally 
established and the feeble American colonies 
became the United States of America, Dr. Sea- 
bury was most unpopular to the patriots w r ho 
had achieved independence at such a cost. 
From New York southward, many Churchmen 
were in active sympathy with the Continent- 
al government. George Washington was a 
Churchman. So were all the signers of the 
Declaration of Independence from Maryland, 
Virginia and the Carolinas, most of those from 
Pennsylvania, and the preponderating number 
from the other States south of New England, 

In Connecticut most of the Churchmen were 
Tories, and so, loyal to the British Crown. 
When, therefore, the war was over, and Church- 
men began to draw together the scattered frag- 
ments of the Church, they felt themselves to 
be under the necessity of exercising very great 
care to escape censure from the civil author- 



12 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

ities, in trying to perpetuate anything so very 
English as the English Church. 

Accordingly, ten of the fourteen clergy men in 
Connecticut gathered informally and secretly 
at Woodbury, on the 21st of April, 1783, to con- 
sider what might be done. No record of their 
proceedings has come to us — even their names 
are unknown. That the episcopate must be 
established, they were agreed. How, only time 
could tell. 

Accordingly, they elected Dr. Seabury to the 
office. Their first choice was the Rev. Jere- 
miah Learning, D. D., an aged clergyman, then 
in New York, who had lost his all by the mis- 
fortunes of war. Dr. Learning was too infirm 
to accept the arduous trust, and so Dr. Seabury 
was chosen. 

There were, of course, no Bishops in Amer- 
ica to whom the Bishop-elect could go for ordi- 
nation. The long and hazardous voyage to 
England was therefore necessary. The plan 
decided upon was, that Dr. Seabury should first 
lay his credentials before the English Bishops 
and apply for consecration. Should that fail, 
he was then to proceed to Scotland and seek 
consecration from the Non-juring Bishops. 



SAMUEL SEABURY. 13 

The English Bishops at the close of the 
eighteenth century were not remarkable for 
their piety. Many of them had received their 
appointment as court favors, and their spirit- 
ual duties were well-nigh forgotten. Lowth, 
Bishop of London, had declared he never would 
lay hands upon any man who was " going to 
America to preach." English Churchmen, like 
English statesmen, were humiliated by the loss 
of their American colonies. 

Thus Dr. Seabury found the prospects de- 
cidedly unfavorable. There were real difficul- 
ties in the way, and artificial difficulties were 
made. The English consecration service con- 
tains an oath of obedience to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury or of York. This, of course, an 
American Bishop could not take. Then the 
Bishops could not conceive of an eighteenth 
century Bishop whose jurisdiction would be 
wholly spiritual. The episcopate would fall 
into disrepute, they maintained. What surety 
would be given that proper support would be 
given a Bishop in Connecticut ? What would 
be his relations to the State ? 

At length a bill was passed through Parlia- 



14 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

merit dispensing with the oaths from persons 
consecrated Bishops for foreign countries. 
But even then innumerable difficulties were 
raised by the Bishops. Dr. Seabury's patience 
and his purse were well-nigh exhausted. He 
had lived at his own expense in London for 
more than a year, and he was a poor man. 
Finally he proceeded to Scotland, and visited 
the persecuted Church of the Non-Jurors. 

A hundred years before, when William, 
Prince of Orange, came to the British Throne, 
and the Stuarts were banished, the Scottish 
Bishops refused to conform to the new regime, 
but remained loyal to King James. They were 
accordingly deprived from their sees, their 
places were given to Presbyterians, and the 
Presbyterian was constituted by law the es- 
tablished Church of Scotland. The deprived 
Bishops, hated equally by Scottish Presbyteri- 
ans for their Church manship and by English 
Churchmen for their politics, met in secret for 
divine service, and perpetuated the episcopate 
by secret, but well authenticated, consecrations. 
They were only a few, and were persecuted bit- 
terly, but they were ardent and true Church- 



SAMUEL SEABURY. 15 

men, and perpetuated the old Scottish Liturgy, 
which was very similar to the first Prayer Book 
of King Edward VI. in England. 

To these Non-Jurors Dr. Seabury presented 
his credentials. With a true spirituality born 
of hardship and trial, and with a firm belief in 
the Catholicity of the Church, with an episcopal 
succession unbroken, through James Sharp y 
consecrated Archbishop of Saint Andrew's in 
1661 by the Bishops of London, Worcester and 
Llandaff, three of these exiled princes of the 
Catholic Church — Robert Kilgour, Arthur Pe- 
trie and John Skinner — conferred the episco- 
pate upon the infant American Church, by the 
consecration of Dr. Samuel Seabury, on the 
14th of November, 1784. Truly, as the Psalm- 
ist sings, the same stone which the builders 
refused, had become the head stone in the cor- 
ner ! 

After his consecration, Bishop Seabury at 
once returned to his flock in Connecticut. He 
became rector of the parish at New London, 
from which he received his support. The 
clergy accepted him loyally as their Bishop. 

His jurisdiction really included the whole 



16 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

of New England, and he visited all parts of 
those States. An amusing story is told by 
Bishop Chase in his " Reminiscences/' as hav- 
ing been told by Bishop Jarvis : 

The Congregationalists of New England 
were exceedingly indignant that a Bishop 
should have invaded their stronghold. At 
Bishop Seabury's first visitation of Boston, 
Mather Byles, the Congregationalist minister, 
determined that he would get from the Bishop 
some recognition of his (Byles') Congrega- 
tional orders as being equal to the episcopal 
orders of the Bishop. Bishop Seabury and Dr. 
Parker, rector of Trinity Church, were accord- 
ingly invited by Mr. Byles to tea. The two 
walked together to the house of their host. 
As they entered the yard, and walked toward 
the house, Mr. Byles advanced toward them, 
making profound obeisances at every step. As 
the guests reached his doorstep, he looked the 
Bishop full in the face, and, raising his voice, 
said with the utmost formality : 

"Rt. Rev. Father in God, Samuel, Bishop of 
all New England, I, Mather Byles, as the repre- 
sentative of all the clergy of the Congrega- 



SAMUEL SEABURY. 17 

tional churches in Massachusetts Bay, and 
other places, bid thee a hearty welcome to 
Boston, and give thee, and hope to receive 
from thee, the right hand of fellowship." 

Mr. Byles held out his hand, expecting the 
Bishop to grasp it. Not so was the great Sea- 
bury to be caught. Without a moment's hes- 
itation he replied : 

" Not so, Mr. Byles, with your leave ; I can't 
do this ; but as you are a left-handed brother, I 
give you my left hand." 

In the meantime the Church was being 
organized in the other States, though as yet 
there was no Bishop. Accordingly, in the sum- 
mer following Bishop Seabury's consecration, a 
letter was sent by the Connecticut clergy to 
Churchmen in the other States, inviting them 
to attend a conference at Middletown to form- 
ulate a union. The Philadelphia clergy replied 
that a General Convention had already been 
formed and would hold its first meeting in that 
city in the September following, and invited 
the Church in Connecticut to send representa- 
tives to that convention. 

Bishop Seabury plead poverty and a press of 



18 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

duties as his excuse for not accepting this 
invitation. There were, however, some doubts 
as to how he would be received, should he go ; 
and this fact may have influenced him in stay- 
ing away. Instead, he addressed to Dr. White, 
the leading spirit, a letter of sympathy with the 
work of the convention, but urging him to pro- 
tect more carefully the office of the episcopate. 
In 1786 a second session of the General Con- 
vention was held, and a spirit very unfriendly 
to Bishop Seabury was manifested. Dr. Pro- 
voost, afterward Bishop of New York, moved : 

" That this convention will resolve to do no act that 
shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Dr. 
Seabury." * 

Happily, this motion failed, only New York, 
New Jersey and South Carolina voting for it. 
Later, in 1789, the validity of Dr. Seabury's 
orders was unanimously affirmed. Bishops 
were consecrated in England for Pennsylvania 
and New York, and later for Virginia. 

Negotiations for the union of the Church in 
Connecticut with that of the other States con- 



Perry's Journals of General Convention, vol. 1, page 37. 



SAMUEL SEABURY. 19 

tinued to be interchanged. So successful did 
they prove, that Bishop Seabury attended an 
adjourned session of the General Convention of 
1789, held in October, and, with Bishop White, 
constituted the first House of Bishops. In 1792, 
the four Bishops then in America, Dr. Seabury, 
of the Scottish succession, and Bishops White 
(Pennsylvania), Provoost (New York), and Mad- 
ison (Virginia), of the English succession, united 
in the consecration of the Rev. T. J. Claggett, 
D. D., as Bishop of Maryland. Thus were the 
two episcopates united. 

The influence of Bishop Seabury upon our 
present Book of Common Prayer was most 
beneficial. The daily offices were for the most 
part adapted from the English Prayer Book by 
Southern Churchmen, but through the influ- 
ence of Bishop Seabury, the more beautiful 
Communion Office of the Scottish Church was 
made the framework for the American book. 
He also strongly urged the continuance of the 
Athanasian Creed in the Prayer Book, but the 
South would not listen to him. New York, 
Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted " No " 
unanimously, New Jersey and Delaware were 



20 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

divided, Maryland and Virginia were not repre- 
sented. It was through Bishop Seabury's in- 
fluence that the House of Bishops was organized 
as a separate house. 

Bishop Seabury's Churchmanship was ahead 
of his age. He believed firmly in the Church 
as a divine organism. His orders, he firmly 
believed, were of divine origin, and the Apos- 
tolic succession was to him a certain fact. His 
influence upon the Church was very great, 
aided, no doubt, by his unquestioned purity of 
character. He died February 25th, 1796, and 
was buried in the cemetery at New London. 
In 1849 his remains were taken into the chan- 
cel of S. James' Church, New London, and an 
altar tomb, surmounted by a mitre, was erected 
over them. Bishop Seabury's mitre is still 
preserved in the library of Trinity College, 
Hartford. 




WILLIAM WHITE, 
Bishop of Pennsylvania. 

[From a Steel Engraving.] 



(II.) WILLIAM WHITE 

THE FIRST BISHOP OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

\J two men were ever more unlike than 
Samuel Seabury, the subject of the pre- 
vious sketch, and William White, first Bishop 
of Pennsylvania. 

The latter was born in Philadelphia, April 
4th, 1748. He was educated at the College of 
Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsyl- 
vania ; was ordained deacon by the Bishop of 
Norwich in 1770, and priest by the Bishop of 
London in 1772. He was thus a young man, 
and young also in orders, when the War of the 
Revolution broke out. He was at first assistant 
minister, and then rector, of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia. 

Of the patriots who resisted the British 
claims, no one was more ardent than the young 
Philadelphia clergyman. When the Continent- 
al Congress was in session at Philadelphia, he 



22 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

was made chaplain, in 1787, and he held that 
position until 1801. 

When the war was over, the future of the 
Church was a grave question. Notwithstand- 
ing that a great number of the leading patri- 
ots were Churchmen, the Church was looked 
upon as "English," and was accordingly un- 
popular with the masses. 

In the same year in which the Connecticut 
clergy met in synod and, trusting in Him who 
had promised that the gates of hell should 
never prevail against the Church, had elected 
Dr. Seabury to the episcopate, Dr. White, in 
Philadelphia, published his celebrated pamph- 
let, " The Case of the Episcopal Churches Con- 
sidered," wherein he looked upon the attempt 
to obtain the episcopate, as hopeless. 

It is an interesting study to compare these 
two American types. Dr. Seabury acted upon 
a firm belief in the necessity of the episcopate, 
trusting that God would make clear the way 
by which it might be obtained. Dr. White ap- 
plied to the same subject his calm, cold, states- 
manlike logic, which declared the scheme im- 
possible. But Faith triumphed over Logic, as 



WILLIAM WHITE. 23 

in God's Kingdom it is sure to do, and the 
American Church received the episcopate in 
God's good time. 

This pamphlet of Dr. White's, first assumed 
the impossibility of obtaining the episcopate 
from England. Next, it recommended that the 
clergy and lay delegates from each parish in 
definite districts, form diocesan organizations, 
record their attachment to episcopacy and 
their determination to secure it when it might 
be possible, and then proceed to carry on the 
Church by presbyterial organization. It was a 
project only for an emergency which seems to 
have disheartened the great White. He him- 
self, in after years, defended it only on the 
ground of an apparent necessity. But while 
Churchmen in Philadelphia and the South were 
considering its expediency, Dr. Seabury was 
crossing the great ocean in search of episcopal 
consecration. * 

Dr. White's plan was never acted upon, and 
with a return of hopefulness, was entirely 
abandoned. 



*This pamphlet is reprinted in full, in the third volume of 
Bishop Perry's "Journals of General Convention." 



24 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

In 1784 there was a meeting held in New 
Brunswick, New Jersey, of the managers of 
the "Society for the Relief of the Widows and 
Orphans of Clergymen," supported jointly by 
Churchmen in New York, New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania. The discussions took a wide 
range, and covered the whole state of the 
Church. Laymen as well as clergymen were 
present. As a result of the conference, a call 
w^as issued for delegates from all the States, to 
meet in October of the same year, at New York. 

On the 6th of October, the convention met. 
Dr. White was the leading spirit, and delegates 
were present from Pennsylvania, New York, 
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and 
Connecticut. The Connecticut delegation were 
only present provisionally, awaiting the result 
of Dr. Seabury's trip to England. A general 
plan for the future was outlined, by which a 
General Convention should be formed, consist- 
ing of clergy and laity, Bishops, when conse- 
crated, to be members ex-officio. The doctrines 
of the Church of England were to be maintained, 
as also the Liturgy, so far as consistent with 
the American Republic. The whole plan, sub- 



WILLIAM WHITE. 25 

stantially embodied in the present constitution 
and canons of the American Church, was sub- 
mitted by the conference to the Church in the 
several States for approval. The plan had 
originally been drawn up by Dr. White, at an 
informal gathering at his house in Philadelphia. 
The conference also issued a call for a consti- 
tutional convention, to be held in Philadelphia 
in the succeeding autumn. 

The plan was generally favorably received. 
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- 
ware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina 
sent delegates. Massachusetts sent a letter. 
Connecticut declined to participate, although 
Bishop Seabury had already been consecrated.* 
The convention met on the 27th of September. 
On the second day, Dr. White was unanimously 
elected president, and the Rev. David Griffith, 
of Virginia, secretary. The work of this, the 
first General Convention, was not wholly satis- 
factory. The convention was composed of 
clergy and laity, with no Bishops. New Eng- 
land was not represented at all. The Prayer 
Book was revised very much and very unsatis- 



* See page 15. 



26 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

factorily. An address to the English Bishops 
was prepared, and the roll ol States called for 
the presentation of names of Bishops-elect. 
Dr. Provoost was named by New York, Dr. 
White by Pennsylvania, and the Rev. David 
Griffith by Virginia. 

The English Bishops were not cordial. 
Strange reports had spread abroad as to the 
Philadelphia convention. It had, indeed, taken 
strange liberties with the Church's creeds, and 
its Prayer Book, known to history as the "Pro- 
posed Book,' 7 never was widely received. 

The convention re-assembled in June, 1786, 
and prepared a reply to the English Bishops. 
They also adopted a constitution, meeting 
again in October of the same year at Wilming- 
ton, Delaware, when they received further com- 
munication from England. After the conven- 
tion, Drs. White and Provoost set sail for the 
mother country, to obtain consecration. 

It was on the 4th day of February, 1787, in 
Lambeth Chapel, when that memorable service 
was held by which the English episcopal suc- 
cession was given to America. The Archbishop 
of Canterbury, Dr. Moore, was assisted by the 



WILLIAM WHITE. 27 

Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Bath 
and Wells, Peterborough, London, and Roches- 
ter ; and William White and Samuel Pro- 
voost became Bishops in the Church of God. 

There were now three Bishops in the Amer- 
ican Church, but Bishop Seabury's position was 
not yet acknowledged outside of Connecticut. 
There was, indeed, little friendly communica- 
tion between the Tory Churchmen of New Eng- 
land and the Whig Churchmen of Pennsylvania 
and the South. But Bishop White at once set 
to work to reconcile the factions. In 1790, Dr. 
James Madison was consecrated in England as 
Bishop of Virginia. Thus there were three 
Bishops of English succession in the United 
States, and Bishop Seabury, of Scottish conse- 
cration. In 1792, the four Bishops united in 
the consecration of the Rev. T. J. Claggett, D. D., 
as Bishop of Maryland. Thus the Church was 
united, and the twofold succession given to all 
the future Bishops of the Church. 

For nearly fifty years, Bishop White lived, 
the Presiding Bishop, and in many ways the 
leading Bishop in the American Church. His 
leading and most valuable literary work was 



28 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

his "Memoirs ot the Church," which made rec- 
ord of the early history of the Church in the 
United States. Bishop White took part in 
the consecration of no less than twenty-seven 
Bishops, the last of whom was the missionary 
Kemper. 

Bishop White was strong as a diplomat and 
as a statesman. It is to him that we owe the 
constitution of the Church, and, in large part, 
the reconciliation of the Church in New Eng- 
land with that in the other States. In spirit- 
uality and devotion, he was inferior to Seabury. 
His Churchmanship was not of the same un- 
compromising caste. Bishop Eobart, who was 
latterly his contemporary in New York, made 
a greater impress upon the real work of the 
Ohurch. Bishop White did not have the mis- 
sionary zeal that might have vastly strength- 
ened the Church in the Western part of his 
great diocese. But his diplomatic power and 
statesmanlike ability were ot vast use to the 
Church in its infancy, and no name is better 
known to Churchmen in America to-day, than 
that of William White. 




JOHN HENRY HOBART, 
Bishop op New York. 



(III.) JOHjST henry hobart 

BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 

A NEW epoch opens up before us with the 
^^ consideration of the work of Bishop Ho- 
bart. After the Revolution, the Church was tol- 
erated only, and her chief shepherds, it may be 
of necessity, did little aggressive work, but 
apologized, perhaps too feebly, for the continu- 
ance of what had once been known as the 
"Church of England." From the days ot 
Bishop Hobart a new idea was advanced. The 
divine mission of the Church was taught, and 
a truer Churckmanship was impressed upon her 
members. 

John Henry Hobart was born in Philadel- 
phia on the 14th of September, 1775. He was 
baptized, confirmed and ordained deacon, by 
Bishop White, in Christ Church, in his native- 
city. 

For short periods of time he was, respect- 

29 



30 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

ively, in charge of Trinity Church, Oxford, 
near Philadelphia ; rector of Christ Church, 
New Brunswick, New Jersey (the same parish 
which had once been served by Bishop Seabury), 
and rector of the Church at Hempstead, Long 
Island. Iu 1799, he became secretary of the 
House of Bishops. In 1800, he became assist- 
ant minister at Trinity Church, New York, 
Bishop Moore being rector. In the following 
year, he was advanced to the priesthood by 
Bishop Provoost. 

Mr. Hobart was known as a remarkable 
preacher before he had passed his diaconate. 
After he took up work in the metropolis, his 
fame spread rapidly. A disciple of Bishop 
Seabur}^, he was convinced that the position of 
the Church was impregnable, and he believed 
in preaching it vigorously. He early took a 
leading part in the deliberations of the dio- 
cesan convention of New York, w^as its secre- 
tary from 1801 until his election to the episco- 
pate, was a member of the Standing Commit- 
tee, and was deputy to General Convention in 
1801, 1804 and 1808. 

In 1803, he began his literary work by edit- 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 81 

ing and republishing a work on " The Nature 
and Constitution of the Christian Church." 
The first edition of his " Companion for the 
Altar " was dated the next year. This little 
work was of deep spirituality, and was of a 
character unknown before, in those days. It 
created a storm of dissension, and was con- 
demned as " unreal " and " extravagant." Un- 
real and extravagant its language would doubt- 
less be to its condemners ; real, sincere and 
true, it was to the young priest. It is encour- 
aging to learn that prior to 1836, the Manual 
had passed through six editions. Two other 
works were also published, in 1805, and 1806, 
respectively. One of these was his " Compan- 
ion for the Festivals and Fasts," which is still 
in print, and which was destined to bring its 
author into a sharp controversy. 

Soon after this work was published, a series 
of violent attacks upon its principles, and upon 
the Church, was made by the Albany Sentinel, 
a paper widely circulated in the State at that 
time. The attacks were continued through 
several months, and, though anonymous, were 
understood to have been written by the Rev. 



32 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Dr. Linn, a Presbyterian minister, widely 
known. The attacks not only criticised the 
book itself, but also appealed to the popular 
prejudice against the Church, which was then 
happily declining. Mr. Hobart, assisted by two 
friends, ably defended the "Companion" and 
the Church tenets which were so bitterly as- 
sailed. As a result of this literary warfare, Mr. 
Hobart, now a D. D. from Union College, pub- 
lished another, and perhaps his most famous, 
work, "An Apology for Apostolic Order audits 
Advocates." It was in this book that he used 
those words which afterward became so widely 
quoted as the watchword of the Church : " My 
banner is Evangelical Truth and Apostolic 
Order." 

This latter book, being a complete defense 
of the Church and its Apostolic succession, 
created a great furore. Dr. Hobart was said 
to " unchurch the other denominations." His 
argument was coarsely said to be "episcopacy 
or perdition." He was characterized as a bigot, 
and was charged with a lack of charity. In- 
deed, the charges against Dr. Hobart in 1807, 
have a strikingly familiar sound. They are 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 38 

the same as are sometimes made now against 
the advocates of Apostolic order. How com- 
pletely has history vindicated Dr. Hobart ! How 
completely w T ill it also vindicate those who dare 
to stand up for the truth now ! 

One of the greatest ambitions of Dr. Hobart, 
was to build up a theological seminary for the 
Church. As yet, there was no place in the 
Church for the instruction of candidates for 
the ministry. The canons, indeed, provided for 
examinations by chaplains prior to ordination. 
But the education itself must either be ob- 
tained under alien influences, or under private 
tutorship. What wonder that the clergy were 
not fully instructed in distinctive Churchman- 
ship ! How shall they learn except they be 
taught ! 

This ambition resulted in the formation of 
a class, under the leadership of a clergyman, 
which should make a study of Theology, and at 
the same time unite in devotional exercises. 
This class, so humble in its origin, was the 
germ of the present General Theological Semi- 
nary. Of that institution, Dr. Hobart was one 
of the founders, and afterwards, when he was 



34 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

established in New York, he was made its pro- 
fessor of Pastoral Theology. 

Dr. Hobart began, in 1808, the editorship of 
the Churchman } s Magazine, the first Church 
periodical published in New York. The plan 
was to make a stirring magazine in the inter- 
ests of the Church, to impress more firmly upon 
her members a sound Churchmanship. Busy 
though Dr. Hobart continually was, he found 
time to revise the papers sent for publication, 
and to perform the exacting duties of an editor. 

It was in 1809, that Dr. Hobart began a work 
that, in its first years, encountered the most 
frantic opposition, both within and without 
the Church. This was the New York Bible 
and Common Prayer Book Society, organized 
for the distribution of Bibles and Prayer 
Books as missionaries beyond the pale of the 
Church. Dr. Hobart believed firmly in the 
Prayer Book. He believed, without reserve, 
that no better digest of the Scriptures existed. 
Thus, he believed it to be the duty of the 
Church to circulate the Prayer Book with one 
hand and the Bible with the other. 

This led, for a time, to serious trouble with 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 35 

the American Bible Society, an organization 
composed of representatives of all denomina- 
tions. Dr. Hobart had no wish to antagonize 
their work, bat he was bitterly opposed to any 
" inter - denominational " or " non - sectarian " 
union, which must ignore some of the positive 
teachings of the Church. He did not believe 
in a " Christian Unity " that left out the Church. 
He believed that the Church was qualified, as 
it was commissioned, to do its own work, and 
that any compromise in doing that work, was 
a breach of trust. Thus was formed that ad- 
mirable institution, now so well and so grate- 
fully known to hundreds of missionaries and 
struggling missions of the Church. 

Church music was a subject which received 
frequent treatment in the Churchman *s Maga- 
zine. Dr. Hobart was himself a musician, and 
opposed vigorously the frivolous music which 
was then too widely sung in the Church. 

His work as a priest concluded with his ele- 
vation to the episcopate in 1811. 

Before considering Dr. Hobart as a Bishop, 
we must go back some years to explain the 
status of the Bishopric of New York. 



36 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Bishop Provoost, her first Bishop, was con- 
secrated, with Bishop White, in Lambeth 
Chapel, in 1787. Prior to the War of Inde- 
pendence, Mr. Provoost was assistant minister 
of Trinity Church, New York. Unlike many 
of the clergy, his sympathies were with the 
patriots in the memorable struggle. At the 
outbreak of the war, the rector of Trinity 
Church being an ardent loyalist, Mr. Provoost 
retired to his farm in Dutchess county, living 
in poverty, and gaining the reputation of a 
martyr to the American cause. 

When, therefore, the victorious colonists 
made peace, Mr. Provoost was invited to re- 
turn to New York, and to become rector of 
Trinity Church. This, in 1784, he did. In 1786, 
he was elected Bishop of New York, and re- 
ceived consecration, as we have seen, in 1787. 

Bishop Provoost was not an active man. 
He loved his comfort and ease, and appeared 
to be very little weighted down with diocesan 
affairs. In 1799, too, he was afflicted by the 
loss of his wife, and in 1800, by the death of an 
unworthy son. Increasing age did not increase 
his love for work, and, on the whole, his epis- 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 37 

€opate was not a brilliant one. In September, 
1800, he resigned the rectorship of Trinity 
Church, and summoning the diocesan conven- 
tion for the first time in three years, presented 
to them his resignation of his diocese, to take 
effect the following year. 

Bishop Provoost's successor in the rector- 
ship of Trinity Church was his own assistant, 
the Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. When the 
convention accepted the Bishop's resignation 
of his diocese, Dr. Moore was also elected 
Bishop, on the 5th of September, 1801. 

Three days after Dr. Moore's election, the 
General Convention met at Trenton, New Jer- 
sey. On the second day of the session, Bishop 
White presented to the House of Bishops a 
personal letter from Bishop Provoost declaring 
that he had already presented his resignation 
to the convention of the State of New York. 
Dr. Moore's testimonials as Bishop-elect of New 
York, were also before the convention. 

After deliberation, the House of Bishops 
declined to admit the validity of this resigna- 
tion, because made to the diocesan convention 
instead of to their own House. They resolved, 



38 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

however, to consecrate Mr. Moore as coadjutor, 
or assistant, Bishop of New York, which resolve 
was carried into effect on September 11th. 

Thus Dr. Moore, elected to one office and 
consecrated to another, proceeded to New 
York. Bishop Provoost retired to his farm, 
and devoted his time to the study of botany 
and the classics. He seems to have entirely 
neglected the services of the Church — not even 
attending the Holy Communion. For ten years 
he paid no attention, whatever, to the diocese 
of New York. 

Bishop Moore suffered a stroke of paralysis 
in 1811, and accordingly applied to the conven- 
tion to elect an assistant Bishop. On the 14th 
of May, the convention assembled. Dr. Hobart 
was at this time an assistant minister of Trin- 
ity Church, and the editor of the Churchmati's 
Magazine. His name appears to have been 
most prominent at once before the members of 
the convention. His election, however, was 
bitterly opposed by the evangelical faction. 
On the second day of the convention, May 15th, 
Dr. Hobart was elected by a majority of both 
orders. 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 39 

His consecration seemed, however, to be du- 
bious, for it was doubtful whether three Bish- 
ops could, or would, unite together at any one 
place. Only two Bishops attended the meet- 
ing of General Convention, which was held the 
week after Dr. Hobart's election. These were 
the Bishops of Pennsylvania (White) and 
Connecticut (Jarvis). The ancient canons, 
however, require three Bishops to join in a 
consecration. Where should the third come 
from ? 

Bishop Provoost's retirement has already 
been noted. Bishop Moore was laid up by par- 
alysis. Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, started 
North for the purpose, but was taken ill on the 
way, and returned home. Bishop Madison, of 
Virginia, declared that his duties as president 
of William and Mary College demanded his 
presence in Virginia, and declined to leave. 
Dr. Hobart's friends were in despair. 

Finally Bishop Provoost was prevailed upon 
to consent to assist in the consecration, " if his 
health would permit." The Bishops agreed to 
have the service in his bed-chamber, if need be. 
This, fortunately, was not required, and the 



40 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

three Bishops, White, Provoosfc and Jarvis, 
gathered in Trinity Church. 

Of this point in our narrative, an amusing 
story is related by Dr. McConneli in his very 
interesting " History of the American Episco- 
pal Church :" 

" But upon his (Bishop Provoost's) arrival a great 
difficulty arose. He had adorned his head with a wig, 
and the other Bishops wore only their hair. It was 
solemnly discussed whether or not so important a func- 
tion could be performed wigless. Dr. Duche offered 
to lend Bishop White his for the occasion. But Bishop 
Jarvis, in that case, would be singular. Bishop White 
advanced the high example of Bishop Tillotson, whose 
portrait shows him wigless. This illustrious precedent 
was deemed satisfactory for the two, while Bishop Pro- 
voost should uphold ancient usage in his episcopal 
head-dress."* 

So Dr. Hobart was consecrated a Bishop in 
the Church of God, with jurisdiction in New 
York, and at the same time Bishop Griswold 
was consecrated, for the Eastern Diocese. 

The opposition which had manifested itselt 
at the election, was by no means allayed. A 



McConnell's Hist, of the Am. Ep. Ch., pages 285-6. 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 41 

"Solemn Appeal to the Church" against his 
consecration had been made by the Rev. Cave 
Jones, fellow - assistant at Trinity Church. 
Though fruitless in preventing the consecra- 
tion, it lighted a firebrand throughout the 
Church. Some also doubted the validity of 
Bishop Hobart's orders, the invocation (" In the 
Name of the Father/' etc.) having been inadver- 
tently omitted by the' Presiding Bishop, at the 
laying on of hands. To cap the climax, Bishop 
Provoost now addressed a letter to the conven- 
tion of the diocese, reciting that the House of 
Bishops had, ten years before, declined to rec- 
ognize his resignation, and declaring that he 
was now ready, "in deference to the resolution " 
of the House of Bishops, to resume his episco- 
pal duties. This letter was signed by himself 
as " Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the State of New York, and Diocesan of the 
same." 

The diocesan convention (1812) issued a long 
proclamation reciting the facts, denying Bishop 
Provoost's jurisdiction, and acknowledging 
Bishop Moore "and no other person, to be their 
true and lawful Diocesan Bishop." Bishop Ho- 



42 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

bart also rose to the emergency. The personal 
charges against himself were easily refuted. 
His argument upon the legal point, was said to 
be unanswerable. Mr. Jones, his opponent, 
continued to be so troublesome, that he was 
finally suspended for contumacy. He was sub- 
sequently restored, and left the diocese. 

The opposition to Bishop Hobart continued 
most bitter for the first two years of his episco- 
pate. An anonymous letter to the Bishop, crit- 
icised severely, and not in a kindly spirit, the 
Bishop's pronunciation. His personal appear- 
ance, also, was brought into play against him. 
In spite of these petty insults, the Bishop easily 
held his ground. 

In 1814, Bishop Hobart took his seat in the 
House of Bishops, which met in Philadelphia. 
At the opening service, the Rev. R. Channing 
Moore, D. D., was consecrated Bishop of Vir- 
ginia. Bishop Claggett, of Maryland, was to 
have been preacher, but was detained by ill- 
ness. Bishop Hobart, therefore, by invitation, 
took his place. The Bishop seized the oppor- 
tunity for preaching a strong and characteristic 
discourse on "The Origin, General Character- 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 43 

istics, and Present Condition of the Church." 
The sermon was most timely, and received 
much attention. It was at this convention that 
the first steps were taken looking to the forma- 
tion of the General Theological Seminary. In 
view of his well-known favor of such a semi- 
nary, Bishop Hobart was much criticised for op- 
posing the establishment of it by act of General 
Convention. But the reason was plain. Bishop 
Hobart doubted the advisability of placing 
complete control of so important an undertak- 
ing, in the hands of so changeable a body as the 
General Convention. In later years, the matter 
was happily settled on its present basis. 

Bishop Hobart was an ardent believer in 
domestic missions. His predecessors in the 
episcopate had hardly ventured further from 
the metropolis than to make an occasional 
visit to Albany. To Bishop Hobart, the rapidly 
settling portions of Western New York early 
became a care. The story of the conversion of 
the Oneida Indians, on the reservation in the 
central part of the State, is full of romantic 
interest. 

One of the later inroads of the Indians, was 



44 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

an attack on Deerfield, Connecticut. The vil- 
lage was sacked and plundered, and among the 
captives who were carried off by the savages, 
were the wife and children of the rector, the 
Rev. Mr. Williams, who was absent. On his 
return, Mr. Williams at once set off in search of 
his family, but not until many years had elapsed 
did he find them, in an Indian village in New 
York State. One daughter had married an In- 
dian chief, and refused to leave her family. A 
son of this union, who took the maternal name 
of Williams, received Church instruction, was 
appointed by the Bishop as lay reader, and was 
afterward ordained. In 1818, Bishop Hobart 
reports that he confirmed at that mission a 
class of eighty-nine, who had been instructed 
and presented by this Eleazer Williams. In 
this same year, a touching address was sent by 
the Indian chiefs to Bishop Hobart, to which 
thirteen chiefs attested by their marks. 

The Bishop's relation to the New York Bible 
and Prayer Book Society has already been 
noted. Of his influence as Bishop in connection 
with the same, it is enough to note that 500 
copies of the Prayer Book were issued from the 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 45 

Depository in 1815, 2,750 in 1816 and 5,239 in 
1817. These were distributed broadcast by the 
Bishop as missionary tracts. His own son-in- 
law, indeed, Levi Silliman Ives, afterward 
Bishop of North Carolina, was brought into the 
Church by casually looking over a Prayer Book, 
as was also Bishop Otey, first Bishop of Ten- 
nessee. 

Indeed, Bishop Hobart was a profound be- 
liever in organization. Among the fruits of 
the first years of his episcopate, were the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Tract Society, the Young 
Men's Auxiliary Bible and Prayer Book Society, 
the New York Sunday-school Society, the Mis- 
sionary Society, the Education Society, the 
Protestant Episcopal Press, etc. By these, the 
diocese was united together in active work, 
and the missionary spirit was encouraged. 

After the death of Bishop Moore, in 1816, 
Bishop Hobart became involved in controversy 
in regard to the doctrine of the Intermediate 
State, through some clear statements of his 
on the subject, in his funeral discourse at the 
burial of the departed Bishop. This was a sub- 
ject which was painfully misunderstood in the 



46 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

early American Church. In the u Proposed 
Prayer Book" of 1785, the clause relating to 
the descent into hell was expunged from the 
Creed. Upon the protests of the English Bish- 
ops, the clause was restored when the present 
Prayer Book was adopted, . but with rubrical 
permission to omit the words — a permission 
which stood as a blot upon the Prayer Book 
until it was finally removed, in 1886. 

The popular ideas upon this subject were 
very hazy. That misleading phrase, " he has 
gone to be an angel," or " gone to heaven," with 
the hymn : 

" I want to be an angel," 

represented the popular belief. Bishop Hobart 
clearly showed how false these ideas were, and 
taught the Church's true belief of the Interme- 
diate State of Paradise. 

An interesting anecdote of the Bishop is told 
of his visit to Detroit, in 1817, to lay the cor- 
ner-stone of the mother church in that, then, 
far Western outpost. The Bishop made the 
journey by boat, and was met at the landing by 
the members of a Masonic Lodge, in full uni- 
form, who had come to assist in the ceremony. 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 47 

The Bishop never hesitated, but said: "No, 
gentlemen, this cannot be. I came here to lay 
the foundation of a Christian Church, not of a 
heathen temple ; if you accompany me at all 
in that ceremony, it must be as humble Chris- 
tians." 

One of the labors of Bishop Hobart at this 
time was as editor of an edition of D'Oyley 
and Mants' Family Bible, published in 1823. 
His health broke down in the same year, and he 
sought relief in a European trip. It is worthy 
of note, as Dr. Batterson remarks in his " Amer- 
ican Episcopate," that Bishop Hobart was al- 
lowed to preach in Rome, but not in London, 
where he was prevented by the act under 
which Bishops White and Provoost were conse- 
crated. 

In 1826, Bishop Hobart presented in the 
House of Bishops a series of resolutions in 
regard to the use of the Prayer Book, which 
were adopted, as follows : 

"The House of Bishops, deeply solicitous to pre- 
serve unimpaired the Liturgy of the Church, and yet 
desirous to remove the reasons alleged, from the sup- 
posed length of the service, for the omission of some of 



48 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

its parts, and particularly for the omission of that part 
of the Communion office which is commonly called 
the ante- Communion, do unanimously propose to the 
House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the following reso- 
lutions, to be submitted to the several State Conventions, 
in order to be acted upon at the next General Conven- 
tion, agreeably to the eighth article of the Constitu- 
tion."* 

The resolutions following related to permis- 
sion to substitute other Psalms and lessons for 
those appointed, and to certain changes in the 
Confirmation office, and ended as follows : 

"And Whereas, In the opinion of the Bishops, there 
is no doubt as to the obligation of ministers to say, on 
all Sundays and other holy days, that part of the Com- 
munion office which is commonly called the ante-Com- 
munion, yet as the practice of some of the clergy is not 
conformable to this construction of the rubric on this 
point, the House of Bishops propose the following res- 
olution : 

"Resolved, That the following be adopted as a substi- 
tute for the first sentence in the rubric, immediately 
after the Communion office : 

" 'On all Sundays and other holy days, shall be said 
all that is appointed at the Communion, unto the end 



* Perry's Journals of General Convention, vol. 2, page 187 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 49 

of the Gospel, concluding divine service in all cases 
when there is a sermon or Communion, and when there 
is not, with the blessing.' " * 

It is strange to notice how the position of 
parties in the Church has shifted. At that 
time (1826) Low-Churchmen never used the so- 
called ante-Communion service, except as a 
part of the celebration of the Sacrament, 
which was performed only at long intervals. 
The High-Churchmen, led by Bishop Hobart, 
were fighting vigorously to have that portion 
of the service used regularly in all churches. 
So successful were they, that to-day Low-Church 
clergymen are the most careful of any to say 
the ante-Communion service ; while the suc- 
cessors of Bishop Hobart are endeavoring to 
raise the standard still higher, and secure the 
regular use of the other half of the service, 
also, on every Sunday in every church. An- 
other sixty years may see that progress made. 
It may be remarked, in passing, that it is dif- 
ficult to understand why, if the Bishops be cor- 
rect in asserting that " there is no doubt as to 
the obligation of ministers to say, on all Sun- 



*Ibid, page 188. 



50 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

days and other holy days, that part of the Com- 
munion office which is commonly called the 
ante-Communion/' the "obligation of minis- 
ters " does not extend to finishing the Com- 
munion office as appointed, also ! 

There was opposition to these resolutions 
in the lower House, but they passed by a vote 
of 39 ayes to 19 nays. Three years later, how- 
ever, when General Convention re-assembled, 
South Carolina had presented a vigorous pro- 
test, and so great was the opposition that 
Bishop Hobart himself introduced a resolution 
declaring the proposed changes inexpedient, to 
which both Houses agreed. Time has long 
since brought about the more desirable portions 
of what thus failed in legislation — a striking 
instance of how much better it frequently is, 
to let abuses die a natural death, than it is to 
fan them into life by opposition. Some of the 
propositions truly were highly inexpedient. 

These were among the last works of Bishop 
Hobart. His death occurred at Auburn, New 
York, on the 10th of September, 1830. His 
body was taken to New York, and was interred 
under the chancel of Trinity Church. 



JOHN HENRY HOBART. 51 

What the American Church owes, under 
God, to Bishop Hobart, can hardly be over- 
estimated. His work commenced a new era in 
the Church, when men began to wake up to its 
divine characteristics. That work, which is 
popularly supposed to have commenced with 
the Oxford revival, had really begun in America 
before Mr. Keble preached his famous sermon 
on the National Apostasy, in 1833. It was three 
years before this date that the earthly remains 
of John Henry Hobart were laid to rest. 

In fact, we do wrong to suppose that there 
was ever in the English or American Church, a 
total forgetfulness of her Catholic position. 
Before the first waves of the great Oxford 
movement had even started toward the Amer- 
ican shores, Hobart worked and died. Before 
Hobart, Seabury; before Seabury, in England, 
Berkeley and Warburton, and Butler; before 
them, Ken, and the Non-juring Divines. 

The results of such aggressive work on dis- 
tinctively Church lines, may be traced, not only 
in the character of the Churchmanship which 
has resulted from Bishop Hobart's labors, but 
even, it seems, in numerical calculations. New 



52 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

York and Pennsylvania started under similar 
conditions. In .1792, when the clergy list was 
first published, there were nineteen clergymen 
in New York and fourteen in Pennsylvania.* 
The Episcopal administration of the two for 
the first quarter century, was of the same char- 
acter. Bishop Hobart began aggressive work 
in New York, in 1811. Subsequent conditions 
as to emigration and immigration were the 
same, with the balance probably against New 
York on account of the hordes of alien emi- 
grants who land and remain at New York City. 
But see the different results of the progress of 
the Church in the two States ! In 1890, there 
was in Pennsylvania one communicant to 113 
inhabitants, and in New York, one to 60. f 
There were, in the three dioceses in Pennsyl- 
vania, 396 clergy, and in the five dioceses of 
New York, 822.J How can the results of real, 
uncompromising, aggressive Churchmanship — 
such Churchmanship as that of John Henry 
Hobart — be better demonstrated ? 



* Perry's Convention Journals, vol. 1, page 17j3. 
f Living Church Quarterly for 1891, page 256. 
X Ibid, page 255.. 




BISHOP CHASE. 



(IV.) PHILANDER CHASE 

THE PIONEER MISSIONARY. 

A MERICANS of the early part of the nine- 
^^ teenth century were imbued with a rest- 
less spirit. They inherited it from their fa- 
thers, who had come to a New World of toil and 
hardship. The older parts of the East were 
now becoming too " crowded/' too quiet and 
conservative, for this class. Thus commenced 
the emigration which settled the western por- 
tions of New York and Pennsylvania, moved 
westward through Ohio, Kentucky and Michi- 
gan, and gave to the country the hardy pio- 
neers of that day. 

Such a man was Philander Chase. He was 
born in New Hampshire in 1775, spent his 
early days in hard farm work, graduated at 
Dartmouth College in 1796, and was ordained 
deacon by Bishop Provoost in 1798. As a dea- 
con, he founded a number of parishes in North- 
ern and Western New York, including those at 

53 



54 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Utica. Later, after his ordination to the priest- 
hood, he was rector of Poughkeepsie and Fish- 
kill. 

In 1805, he went to New Orleans to take 
charge of a "Protestant Church," organized on 
a "non-sectarian" basis, but which was re-or- 
ganized under his direction as a Church parish, 
and became Christ Church — now the pro-cathe- 
dral of Louisiana. Being far distant from any 
Bishop, it was placed under the episcopal juris- 
diction of the Bishop of New York. 

In 1817, Mr. Chase crossed the Alleghanies 
and settled in the wilderness of central Ohio. 
There were no Churchmen anywhere in his 
vicinity, but he began missionary work, and 
founded a number of parishes, including Co- 
lumbus and Zanesville. He also took charge 
of an academy at Worthington, from which, 
with his farm, he derived his support. 

The few clergy and parishes of Ohio elected 
Mr. Chase to the episcopate in 1818, and al- 
though there was some objection in Philadel- 
phia and elsewhere to consecrating a Bishop 
for so far-away place as Ohio, it was overruled, 
and he was consecrated in 1819. 



PHILANDER CHASE. 55 

Returning to Ohio, travelling mostly on 
horseback, he threw himself again heartily into 
missionary work. He hired a man to work his 
farm, and himself worked hard when at home. 
Finally, he became unable to even hire his one 
man, and accepted the presidency of Cincin- 
nati College, which was offered him, in 1821. 

Now it was that he conceived the idea of 
founding a theological seminary for the West. 
The plan met with much opposition in the 
East. Bishop Hobart was enthusiastic about 
the proposed seminary in New York, and, with 
all his far-seeing statesmanship, could not see 
the necessity of another in Ohio. He was 
doubtful, too, whether its graduates, should it 
ever have any, would be sufficiently instructed. 
It was the same inconceivable ignorance of the 
East in regard to the West from which the 
West has always suffered, and still suffers ! 
None of the Eastern Bishops would indorse 
the plan. His only letters of encouragement 
were from the Bishops of North and South 
Carolina. 

Without friends, funds, influence or letters, 
Bishop Chase sailed for England to raise money. 



56 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

His American opponents did everything to 
thwart his purpose, publishing in the English 
papers, warnings against aiding him or his 
visionary scheme. 

Through the introduction of Henry Clay, 
Bishop Chase presented the matter to Lord 
Gambier, a generous nobleman, and influential 
in the Church Missionary Society. He gave him 
warm support. Through Gambier's aid, the 
claims of Ohio were presented to others of the 
British nobility. Bishop Chase, the hardy West- 
ern pioneer, a species of Bishop unheard of in 
England for a thousand years, became a lion 
of society. Lord Kenyon, Lord Bexley, Lady 
Rosse and others made liberal donations. The 
Archbishops and the leading Bishops were not 
cordial, but the Bishops of S. David's, and 
Sodor and Man became friendly. The Bishop 
of Sodor and Man named his infant daughter 
"Mary Ohio." 

So, with the assistance so obtained, Bishop 
Chase returned to America. The present site 
was selected after some delay, and the "Theo- 
logical Seminary of Ohio and Kenyon College " 
was incorporated and established at Gambier 



PHILANDER CHASE. 57 

But after the work was well under way, in- 
ternal dissensions arose. The Bishop looked 
upon the whole as a theological seminary, with 
the college simply as a preparatory depart- 
ment for that, and all under the immediate 
control of the Bishop. His co-workers dis- 
sented. The matter was finally laid before the 
diocesan convention. Their action, like that 
of many another such body, failed to give 
satisfaction. Bishop Chase then, in 1831, re- 
signed his diocese, and witti it the presidency 
of the seminary. 

Of the Gambier troubles it is not necessary 
to write fully. Dr. John N. Norton, who wrote 
a brief memoir of Bishop Chase, thus summar- 
izes them : 

" Insinuations began to be slyly circulated that the 
college funds were badly managed, although those who 
ventured to make such statements might have known, 
if they chose to inquire, that the Bishop was obliged to 
render a strict account to the Trustees for every dollar 
which passed through his hands. These reports, which 
at first were circulated in distant places, at length 
reached the Diocese of Ohio. Misunderstandings and 
dissensions arose there. The Professors of the Theolog- 
ical Seminary were arrayed against the Bishop. The 



58 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

main ground of difference was this : Bishop Chase 
contended that the college had no being but as a Theo- 
logical Seminary ; and that it was, in fact, merely a 
preparatory branch of it ; and that, as a matter of course, 
it was under the government of the Bishop of the dio- 
cese. The Professors and their supporters complained 
that the patriarchal authority thus assumed by the 
Bishop was too undefinable and too absolute in its 
nature, and, therefore, they rebelled. Whatever may 
be thought, at this day, of the claim set up by the 
Bishop, or of the position assumed by the Professors, 
thus much is certain : that in 1839, ' Bishop Mcllvaine 
was driven by the experience of the evil consequences 
which resulted from the opposite principle, to adopt the 
views of his predecessor. Full justice was thus done to 
the wisdom and correctness of the opinions of Bishop 
Chase in this particular' (Caswell's American Church, 
p. 95)." * 

At the same time, it must be observed that 
the experience of the Church seems to have 
amply proved that, in this country, colleges 
should not be under the ex-officio administra- 
tion of the Bishop of any diocese, or of the 
diocesan convention. There are diversities of 
gifts, and not every one, even in high office, is 



* Norton's Life of Bishop Ciiase, p. 66. 



PHILANDER CHASE. 59 

fitted to have the ultimate care of a college. 
President Smith, of Trinity College, well says : 

" From such information as I have been able to gath- 
er, and from my own experience, I do not think that 
there is any probability that colleges which are, directly 
or indirectly, under the management or control of a 
single diocese can grow into colleges of strength or 
influence in the country or the Church. None of the 
large institutions of our day have become such, with 
an overlordship such as attaches to the Bishops of our 
Church in relation to institutions within their geograph- 
ical jurisdiction. I do not wish to dwell upon the 
logical defect of a system in which a body of Trustees 
puts the burden of responsibility on a man by appoint- 
ing him President, while his orders in the Church put 
him canonically under the hand of a party who is irre- 
sponsible as far as college interests are concerned ; who 
is Bishop by the action of an outside body, or conven- 
tion ; who has other interests to serve, and who is 
bound to use all the instrumentalities in his hand for 
the furtherance of those interests. It seems natural, if 
it be not indeed inevitable, in such a case, that the 
college interests, which are general and permanent, 
should be subordinated in the minds of the clerical 
Professors, and of the convention, to the diocesan inter- 
ests, which are local and transitory. Unless, therefore, 
it is deemed feasible to put the clerical officers of our 



60 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

colleges in the same canonical position as the officers 
of the General Theological Seminary, and of the Gen- 
eral Missionary Society, and thus free them from the 
entanglements of the diocesan connection, I do not 
think that we shall change the old 'use,' which has 
been described as that of ' graduating more Presidents 
than students.' " * 

After Bishop Chase's retirement from Ohio, 
he moved further West and settled in Michigan. 
From his home, near Gilead, he acted as an 
itinerary missionary, as he had formerly done 
in New York and in Ohio. 

On one Sunday, on reaching a mission about 
nine miles from his home, he found the secta- 
rians had arrived ahead of him, and were hold- 
ing a "protracted meeting," which had already 
lasted a week. The Bishop called out the Pres- 
byterian minister. He came, accompanied by 
his brethren of the Congregational, the Metho- 
dist and the Baptist denominations. The Bishop 
announced his intention of holding service ac- 
cording to appointment, and asked them, with 
their flocks, to join. They objected that they 



* Church University Board of Regents paper, "Opinions of 
Educators and Others." 



PHILANDER CHASE. 61 

had no Prayer Books. The Bishop thereupon 
opened up some dozens that he had brought 
with him. " But we do not know how to use 
them," they objected. " I will show you," re- 
plied the Bishop. 

Accordingly the service began. The Bishop 
explained each part as it was reached. The 
whole assembly responded as one man. He 
instructed them to kneel on their knees, citing 
the examples of David, Solomon, Daniel, S. 
Stephen and S. Paul. They all knelt. The 
Lord's Prayer was "as the voice of many 
waters." 

It was about this time that the diocese of 
Illinois was formed. A few clergymen had gone 
into that field, and there were several missions. 
Only one church had been erected — at Jack- 
sonville. There were thirty-five communicants 
reported in the State. 

The primary convention was held on March 
9th, 1835, and Bishop Chase was elected Bishop. 
His election appears to have been a surprise to 
him, but was at once accepted. Leaving his 
family on the farm in Michigan, and accompa- 
nied by the Rev. Samuel Chase, who had lately 



62 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

been ordained by Bishop Griswold; and by Mr. 
Chase's wife, the Bishop started by stage for 
his new diocese. At Michigan City, Indiana, 
he read the Church's service for the first time 
in that city. He then proceeded to Chicago, 
which had lately been founded. Thence to Peo- 
ria, where he held service; to Springfield, where 
Mr. Chase remained, and where, on the 28th of 
June, 1835, Bishop Chase celebrated the Holy 
Communion for the first time. 

Again the question of support troubled the 
Bishop. The General Convention, meeting in 
the fall of the same year (1835), had consecrated 
Bishop Kemper as missionary Bishop for the 
Northwest, and had recognized Bishop Chase's 
translation to Illinois, although irregular. They 
had provided Bishop Kemper with an ample 
salary, but given none to Bishop Chase, as he 
was a diocesan Bishop. 

So the Bishop bethought him to make an- 
other attempt to found in Illinois such a semi- 
nary as he had originally planned for Ohio. 
Accordingly he again started for England. 

Some of his old friends received him with 
pleasure. The Dowager Countess of Eosse, now 



PHILANDER CHASE. 63 

an old lady, sent him £260, Lord Bexley helped 
him to some extent, as did others. Altogether, 
he raised about $10,000. The Bishop of Sodor 
and Alan wrote jokingly that "Mary Ohio" 
would change her name to "Mary Illinois." 

On his return home, the Bishop obtained 
suitable lands and founded Jubilee College, 
calling the place "Robin's Nest." He made a 
great effort to obtain from Congress a grant of 
a portion of the public lands in Illinois, but 
without success. The bill passed the Senate, 
but failed in the House of Representatives. The 
Bishop then made an extensive tour through 
the South and East, raising money for his work 
in Illinois. 

During the lifetime of Bishop Chase, Jubilee 
College was fairly prosperous. It was almost 
the only college in the State, and the Bishop 
labored abundantly for it. 

Nor did he neglect the other missionary 
work of the diocese. We have seen that only 
at Jacksonville had a church been erected when 
he came to Illinois. In 1837 the Bishop conse- 
crated S. James', the mother church, in Chi- 
cago. He notes with pride in that year that 



64 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

there are " now about thirty communicants in 
Chicago.' ' 

In his seventy-eighth year — September 20th, 
1852, Bishop Chase died. He was buried in the 
cemetery of Jubilee College, and upon a monu- 
ment erected over his grave are the words, so 
dear to him, "Jehovah Jireh." 

Bishop Chase was a man of marked personal- 
ity. He was essentially a pioneer and frontiers- 
man — restless, active, content to suffer hard- 
ship. He was one of the first of those noble 
missionaries, who at so great cost to themselves, 
planted the Cross in our Western land. Kenyon 
survives and is prosperous, though on some- 
what different lines from those marked out by 
Bishop Chase. Subject to new conditions, by 
reason of change in the State of Ohio, it is 
doubtless in better condition for its present 
work, to-day, than it would have been had 
Bishop Chase's own views been strictly carried 
out. To him, however, is due the honor of 
founding the work, and Kenyon will always be 
the best monument to the memory of Philan- 
der Chase. 




GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE, 
Bishop of New Jersey. 



(V.) GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE 

BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY. 

HP HE subject of this sketch was born in 
■*■ Trenton, New Jersey, May 27, 1799, and 
his boyhood was spent in Trenton, in New York 
City, and in Geneva, New York. He entered 
Union College, Schenectady, at an early age, 
and there came under the influence of the Rev. 
Dr. Brownell, soon after Bishop of Connecticut, 
through whom it appears to have been, that 
Mr. Doane directed his thoughts to the minis- 
try. He graduated in his nineteenth year in 
the same class with Alonzo Potter, afterward 
Bishop of Pennsylvania. Mr. Doane at once 
began his theological studies at the General 
Theological Seminary, which then occupied a 
second story room over a saddler's shop. Here 
began his intimate acquaintance with Bishop 
Hobart, whom Mr. Doane greatly admired, and 
who had a marked influence over his subse- 
quent life. Mr. Doane established a classical 

65 



66 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

school for boys, in New York, while engaged in 
his studies, and there laid the foundations of 
his subsequent career as an educator. He was 
ordained to the diaconate by Bishop Hobart on 
the 19th of April, 1821, in Christ Church, and 
was appointed by the Bishop as his assistant 
at Trinity Church. The young deacon's first 
sermon was preached at S. Philip's, the church 
for colored people, in the metropolis. He was 
advanced to the priesthood, in Trinity Church, 
on the 6th of August, 1823. In connection with 
Dr. Upfold, afterward Bishop of Indiana, he 
established S. Luke's Church, in New York. 

Soon after Bishop Brownell went to Con- 
necticut, he took steps for the establishment of 
Trinity College — first called Washington Col- 
lege — at Hartford. The college opened in 1824. 
When he arranged for the faculty, Bishop 
Browuell called Mr. Doane, who had been suc- 
cessful in his classical school, to assist him in 
the work. This call Mr. Doane accepted, and 
became professor of helles-lettres, and bursar, 
at the college. Throwing himself heartily into 
his new and congenial work, in which, though 
only in his twenty-sixth year, he made a 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 67 

marked success, Mr. Doane succeeded in at- 
tracting wide attention to the college. He was 
also active in missionary work, founding, at 
this time, the parish at Warehouse Point, with 
others. 

When the Churchman's Magazine, which had 
been founded by Bishop Hobart as an aggress- 
ive organ of true Churchmanship,* suspended 
publication, Mr. Doane began the editing at 
Hartford, of the Episcopal Watchman, which 
he designed to take the place of the former, 
and to support a staunch form of Churchman- 
ship, then not altogether common in the 
Church. Here he was first associated with the 
Rev. Dr. William Croswell, between whom 
and Dr. Doane a warm and lasting friendship 
sprung up. 

The Episcopal Watchman was an ardent ex- 
ponent of Church principles. In its opening ad- 
dress the editors, Drs. Doane and Croswell, said: 

" Taught by the Word of God thus to look to Jesus 
Christ as the Author, and, by the 'preventing' and 
assisting graces of His Holy Spirit, the Finisher of our 
Faith, we also learn from the same inspired source, to 



*See page 34. 



68 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

recognize in that Church which He purchased with His 
Blood, the only authoritative channel of His saving 
grace — the one, sufficient fold of covenanted salvation. 
11 Unfashionable, and perhaps inexpedient, as it may 
be deemed to speak thus on a subject so much and so 
warmly controverted, we venture to express our con- 
viction, that the Church in which we worship, * * 
* * * is, whatever others may be, a sound mem- 
ber of that Holy Catholic Church of which Jesus 
Christ is the Head, from whom all the body, by 
joints and bands, having nourishment ministered, 
and knit together, increaseth with the increase of 
God. The elucidation and defense, therefore, of the 
doctrines, discipline and worship of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church — its divinely instituted minis- 
try, existing from the Apostles' time in three orders, 
with the power of ordination exclusively in the first ; 
its blessed sacraments, opening the kingdom of heaven 
and conveying the means of grace to the devout and 
faithful recipient; its primitive and apostolical rites and 
usages; its liturgy, simple, comprehensive, fervent and 
almost inspired; and its government (at least as it is 
constituted in this country) judicious, wholesome and 
equitable, will be, as in our judgment the scriptural and 
most efficient mode of promoting the salvation of souls, 
the subject of our constant efforts." * 



* Bishop Doane's Memoirs, by his son, vol. 1, pages 100,101. 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 69 

The first issue of the paper began a series 
of articles upon the Christian Year, entitled, 
"The Ritualist.' 7 Other subjects that received 
editorial attention were, the revival of crosses 
in churches, a defense of the use of the term 
Dissenters as applied to non-Churchmen; the 
revival of Gothic architecture ; etc. An early 
number contains a well-merited attack on the 
Sunday-school library books issued by the 
American Sunday-school Union, on the " unde- 
nominational" scheme. Another number re- 
bukes a common failing in referring to " mem- 
bers of the Church " when meaning communi- 
cants, and of "joining the Church" when 
referring to Confirmation or First Communion. 
In 1827, there is a long and appreciative review 
of Bishop Hobart's fearless sermon on the 
Church, delivered at the consecration of Dr. On- 
derdonk as Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania. 
" Fraternizing with denominational ministers " 
was a topic argued against, the point having 
been brought out in Bishop Hobart's sermon. 
On this subject Dr. Doane's ideas were clearly 
that the clergy of the Church could have no 
communion with sectarian ministers. He said : 



70 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

" It is one of the errors of the day to suppose that 
charity, or, as the more favorite expression is, liberality, 
is often inconsistent with a firm adherence to the truth, 
and that, when it is so, the latter must at once be given 
up. We are taught by the wise man to buy the truth 
and sell it not, and we do not believe that any exception 
to this rule was ever contemplated, even though it were 
possible that charity should be the price. But in mat- 
ters of religion, surely it is not possible. It can never 
be required of a man to sacrifice his principles to char- 
ity; because true charity would never make such a de- 
mand. Charity has nothing to do with opinions. It 
is with men that she is concerned. Her sacred precept 
is, love your enemies ; but she does not command you to 
love their creed, or their practice; do good to them that 
hate you, but not a word about bringing our religious 
opinions into unison with theirs. ******** 
Let it not be supposed, then, that charity towards man 
requires, or that duty to God will allow of, any union 
with Christians of other denominations in ecclesiastical 
matters, by which the principles and institutions of our 
own Church may be endangered. ****** As 
we desire that the time of our sojourning here should 
ever be thus passed in harmony and love, let us attempt 
no amalgamation in ecclesiastical concerns. They 
have deliberately adopted their mode of faith. We 
hold ours by the same conclusive tenure. If either of 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 71 

us can give up his belief and go over to the other, it is 
well. Short of this, there can be no l mixture of adminis- 
trations' that will not endanger collision. The attempt 
to approximate, not being deliberate and thorough, will 
lead to a wider separation. The honorable regard of 
those who agreed to differ will give place to the fearful 
jealousies of those who still differ in their agreement. 

**__**"***.« There is another evil insep- 
arable from all attempts at such amalgamation, and 
one of inconceivable moment. I mean the encourage- 
ment which it affords to that most false and dangerous 
opinion, that it is indifferent what a man believes, or to 
what denomination of Christians he belongs. With 
what eye the God who ruleth over all looks down upon 
the various denominations which distract the Christian 
name, it is not for us to say. Certain we are that no 
man can agree with all; and that no man can be justified 
in attaching himself to any one, but upon sincere con- 
viction of the agreement of its faith and worship, its 
ministry and ordinances, with the Word of God. How, 
then, can he be indifferent to its distinctive principles ? 
How can he appear to be so, and not give to the infidel 
and the scoffer occasion to triumph over the ground- 
less distinctions by which the Body of Christ has been 
divided ? 

"Finally, we presume not to judge for others, but 
for the Bishops and Clergy of our own Church, having 



72 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

assented, at the solemn season of their ordination, to 
the clear and explicit declaration, ' it is evident unto all 
men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient 
authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been 
three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, 
Priests and Deacons ' — ' and no man shall be appointed 
or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon, in 
this Church ' (no Church is spoken of but Christ's), ' or 
suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he 
hath had episcopal consecration or ordination ; 1 we see 
not how any other offices, any other ordinances, any 
other worship, any other institutions, can claim to be 
recognized by them as valid and authorized, or how 
they can avail themselves of any other instrumentality 
for the propagation of the Gospel, than that of their 
own Church, and doing this, they will have done their 
part towards advancing what should be dearest to their 
heart, a substantial and fervent piety." 

Truly does Bishop Doane's son, the present 
Bishop of Albany, say: 

" My father's line of argument against fraternizing 
with the denominational ministers, shows how early he 
acceded to the Church's rule on that point, whose ob- 
servance exposed him all his life to much misunder- 
standing." * 

* Memoirs of Bishop Doane, by his son, vol. 1, pages 112-3-4. 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 73 

The motto of the Episcopal Watchman, was 
" The Gospel of Christ in the Church of 
Christ." Dr. Muhlenberg's "Flushing Insti- 
tute " plan was heartily commended ; the use 
of the word " Catholic " to include only Roman- 
ists,, was warmly denounced, and our right to 
the name was vindicated. In short, the Episco- 
pal Watchman was a courageous and vigorous 
defender of the Faith. It was such a paper as 
the Church needs to-day; but it never brought 
wealth to its editors. 

In 1828, Dr. Doane became assistant minis- 
ter at Trinity Church, Boston, and on the death 
of the Rev. Dr. Gardiner, in 1830, he succeeded 
to the rectorship. He at once took the front 
rank among the Massachusetts clergj^, and ? 
notwithstanding his youth, was the recognized 
leader of the High-Church side, which was 
then in the ascendant, in Massachusetts. He 
took an active interest in missions, foreign as 
well as domestic, and was active in establish- 
ing a monthly missionary lecture in Boston, in 
different churches, to be followed by a mission- 
ary offering. Dr. Doane himself preached the 
first of the series, in Christ Church, of which 



74 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Dr. Croswell, his Hartford friend, had lately 
assumed the rectorship. 

In Boston, Dr. Doane and Dr. Croswell were 
again brought together in editorial work, on 
the Banner of the Church, which took the same 
line as had the Episcopal Watchman, and re- 
newed as its motto, Bishop Hobart's watch- 
word, "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Or- 
der." Through this paper, Keble's " Chris- 
tian Year" was introduced to the American 
Church, and, in its issue for April, 1832, there 
was a plea for daily services, which at that 
time were nowhere held. This paper was only 
issued a year and a half, when it was sus- 
pended by reason of Dr. Doane's call to a 
higher office. 

Early in October, 1832, the convention of the 
Diocese of New Jersey met at New Brunswick, 
to elect a Bishop in succession to their late 
diocesan, Bishop Croes, whose eyes were closed 
in death in the August preceding. On the 
sixth ballot, Dr. Doane was elected, and, sub- 
sequently, the election was made unanimous. 
It came as a surprise to the Bishop-elect, but 
was accepted at once. Prompt action was 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 75 

needed, as General Convention was about to 
convene. Dr. Doane had been passing through 
a troublous year in Boston, and there was some 
delay in the House of Bishops in passing on 
his testimonials. His election was, however, 
confirmed, and he was consecrated Bishop, with 
Dr. Hopkins, Bishop-elect of Vermont ; Dr. 
Smith, Bishop-elect of Kentucky; and Dr. Mc- 
Iivaine, Bishop-elect of Ohio, on the 31st of 
October. Bishop Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, 
was the preacher. 

It is difficult for us to realize how great have 
been the changes, even in the East, in the last 
sixty years. It was after Dr. Doane's conse- 
cration to the episcopate, that he notes in his 
diary under the date of December 17, 1832: 

" Saw for the first time the locomotive engine on the 
railway. Stupendous result of human ingenuity ! What 
a world, if men were as skilful and as active in pro- 
moting holiness as in advancing their temporal inter- 
ests !" * 

As in many other dioceses in that day, there 
was no provision in New Jersey for the sup- 



* Memoirs of Bishop Doane, vol. 1, page 196. 



76 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

port of the episcopate. Bishop Doane there- 
fore accepted an election to the historic parish 
of S. Mary's, Burlington, and made his home 
in that city. 

Bishop Doane's previous ministry had taken 
four distinct aspects. These were, educational, 
editorial, parochial and missionary. When he 
had established himself in New Jersey, he re- 
newed all four of these phases of his usefulness, 
and added to them those branches of work 
which were strictly episcopal. He commenced 
the publication, in 1834, of a Church paper 
known as The Missionary, in which his well- 
known editorial abilities found ample scope. 

The missionary portion of his work was also 
fully carried on. The west end of New Jer- 
sey was considered a hopeless field for the 
Church. The Bishop, however, refused to so 
consider it, and built up and encouraged the 
feeble churches everywhere, and was constantly 
planting new ones. He was also active in the 
general missionary work of the Church, and 
was the chairman and leading spirit of the 
Committee of the General Convention of 1835, 
which declared that the Church is the Mission- 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 77 

ary Society, and as a result of whose activity, 
the Board of Missions was organized. Bishop 
Doane was one of those who cordially approved 
of sending a missionary Bishop into the great 
Northwest, and he preached the sermon at the 
consecration of Bishop Kemper, who was elect- 
ed at that session. In 1841, largely through 
the work of Bishop Doane, a proposition to 
send missionary Bishops to Africa and to Texas 
passed the House of Bishops, but failed in the 
lower House, much to the regret of Bishop 
Doane. It was claimed that General Conven- 
tion had no right to send Bishops outside the 
United States ! 

In 1841, the British Parliament repealed the 
act under which American clergymen were 
prohibited from taking any official part, or 
preaching, in services of the English Church. 
The vicar of Leeds, Dr. Hook, thereupon in- 
vited the Bishop of New Jersey to be the 
preacher at the principal service of the conse- 
cration of the new and imposing parish church 
of Leeds. This invitation the Bishop accepted, 
and sailed from Boston on the 1st day of June. 
He was received in England with great cor- 



78 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

diality. The invitation of Dean Hook, and its 
acceptance, were indeed important episodes in 
the intimate relations between the English and 
the American Churches. Bishop Doane records 
in his diary, interesting interviews with many 
of the best known Churchmen of that day. 
The celebrated Tract XC 3 of the Oxford Tracts 
for the Times, had just appeared, and the public 
mind was in a state of violent inflammation. 
Bishop Doane was in full sympathy with the 
Oxford leaders, and had vigorously defended 
them before. Nor did he now see any reason 
for changing his views. At Oxford, he met Dr. 
Pusey, for whom he had a great admiration. 
He also describes interviews with many others. 
The services at Leeds were great functions, and 
Bishop Doane's sermon was worthy of the oc- 
casion. 

In 1837, the Bishop, following his inclina- 
tion for, and belief in, Christian education, 
founded S. Mary's Hall, for girls, in Burlington, 
opening the hall on the 1st of May of that year. 
The outlook was most encouraging when, in 
the fall of the same year, the financial world 
was struck by a terrible panic which arrested 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 79 

progress everywhere. It was a great strain on 
the Bishop and on S. Mary's ; but in a few years 
the outlook again became hopeful, prosperity 
returned to the country, pupils increased, and 
extensive additions and enlargements were 
required. In 1846, the Bishop also opened Bur- 
lington College, for boys. In two years there 
were 127 students; but no endowment, no ade- 
quate provisions for work, no money for the 
necessary increase of the work. 

All this was a heavy burden to the Bishop, 
who was himself receiving a salary of only 
$700 a year from the parish of S. Mary's, one- 
third of which he gave toward the support of 
an assistant minister ; and next to nothing 
from the diocese. To add to his troubles, he 
was taken dangerously ill in the winter of 
1848-9, and for a time his life was despaired 
of. By God's mercy he again came to life ; 
but the financial outlook was gloomy indeed. 
The debts upon the two schools could not be 
met. An attempt to receive an extension of 
time on certain obligations failed, and at 
length the Bishop was obliged to turn over all 
his own property without reservation, for the 



80 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

benefit of his creditors. It was a dark day in- 
deed, when he was declared bankrupt. The 
schools, however, re-opened, under the manage- 
ment of the Bishop, but with the finances in 
the hands of others. 

Troubles now fell thick and fast upon the 
Bishop. Ugly rumors affecting his character, 
in connection with the failure, had been spread 
abroad, and were seized upon by his enemies. 
At home, where the Bishop was known, he 
retained the full confidence of his friends. A 
resolution introduced into the diocesan con- 
vention of 1849, to investigate the rumors, 
failed by a unanimous and indignant "No" 
Not a solitary " aye " was recorded. The opin- 
ion of his co-laborers at home was unmistak- 
able. 

But those were dark days in the American 
Church. There was a relentless, bitter war 
raging against all who were supposed to be in 
sympathy with the new movement emanating 
from Oxford. The Bishop of New York (B. T. 
Onderdonk), a leading High-Churchman, had 
been found guilty of immorality and had been 
suspended from the exercise of his Bishopric. 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 81 

The verdict had been found entirely by Low- 
Church Bishops, with the single exception of 
the Bishop of Vermont (Hopkins), who certain- 
ly believed the defendant to be guilty. The 
High-Church minority had voted "not guilty," 
and believed that Bishop Onderdonk was un- 
dergoing persecution for his staunch Church- 
manship. Bishop Doane believed firmly in his 
innocence, and was most active in seeking to 
prevent his condemnation, but to no avail. 

The Bishop of Pennsylvania (H. U. Onder- 
donk) was then charged with drunkenness. He 
admitted the charge and was deposed. It was, 
however, a case where it would seem that clem- 
ency might profitably have been exercised. The 
Bishop had, on one specific occasion, taken an 
overdose of a stimulant prescribed by his med- 
ical adviser. To his dying day there was 
never again cause for complaint against him. 

And now, flushed with their victories in 
New York and Pennsylvania, the Low-Church 
leaders attacked Bishop Doane, the noblest 
Bishop, perhaps, on the whole bench. " After 
Doane, Whittingham !" it was whispered. 

It is a terrible indictment against the Low- 



82 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Church Bishops of that day, to charge them 
with the prosecution, on criminal charges, of 
innocent men, because their theological opin- 
ions did not agree with their own. We make, 
here, no charges against them. Doubtless they 
were blinded by their zeal to remove from the 
Church what they believed to be serious errors, 
and so, more easily became convinced of their 
guilt. Had their complaints against their oppo- 
nents been on the charge of heresy, it would 
seem less like persecution. But history always 
speaks for itself, and we need make no allega- 
tions against any of those who have now been 
called to give their final account. 

The canons of that day provided that 
charges against a diocesan Bishop might be 
made to the House of Bishops by the conven- 
tion of his diocese, or, failing that, by any 
three Bishops. We have already seen that the 
New Jersey convention of 1849 unanimously 
refused to even consider the matter, so firm 
was their trust in their Bishop. 

Two years passed by, and then, in Septem- 
ber, 1851, the same charges were taken up by 
three of the leading Low-Church Bishops, the 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 8& 

Bishops of Virginia (Meade), Ohio (Mcllvaine) 
and Maine (Burgess), in a letter to Bishop Doane 
alluding to the charges, and urging him to call 
a special convention of the Diocese of New 
Jersey to consider them ; and stating that, 
should he not do so, they would feel obliged 
to proceed against him. The Bishops must, 
however, have known of the action of that, 
convention in 1849, it having been widely pub- 
lished. 

In reply, Bishop Doane issued a warm letter 
protesting against the interference of those 
Bishops in his diocesan affairs, saying : 

" The undersigned is a Bishop in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 
There is nothing against which our whole reformed 
communion in England and America protests more 
strenuously, than against the right of any Bishop to 
interfere within the jurisdiction of any other. And, 
for himself, he must alike resist the intrusion into the 
fold which he has received from Jesus Christ, of the in- 
dividual papacy of Rome, and of the trium viral papacy 
of Virginia, Maine and Ohio. What ! Three Bishops, or 
three hundred, or three thousand, presume to dictate to 
him, under the menace of a presentment, the calling 
of a special meeting of the convention of his diocese ! 



84 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Presume to dictate the object for which such conven- 
tion shall be called !***** The three Bish- 
ops have misconceived their man. The undersigned 
has not asked their advice, and will not submit to their 
urgency. Least of all will he listen to their advice, or 
endure their urgency, under the enforcement of a threat. 
No such special convention will be called by him." * 

The Bishop then makes his "Solemn Protest 
and his Appeal, as solemn, to the Bishops every- 
where with whom he is in communion, against 
the uncanonical, unchristian, and inhuman 
procedure, of the three whose names are over- 
written." After the protest, which is quite 
extended, the Bishop makes a reply to the 
charges against him, detailing his several 
transactions and explaining all his actions in 
regard to them. Three days later, he issued a 
call for a special convention to be held in S. 
Mary's Church, Burlington, " to answer and 
express their judgment on the official conduct 
of these three Bishops as touching the rights 
of the Bishop and the diocese, in dictating a 
course of action to be pursued by them." 

The special convention met on the 17th 



* Memoirs of Bishop Doane, vol. 1, pages 474-5. 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 85 

of March, 1852. In his opening address, the 
Bishop recounted the events which had led to 
the call. The convention, by an overwhelm- 
ing vote, resisted and protested against the 
intrusion of the three Bishops, and declared 
their confidence in their own Bishop. The 
Bishop had declared to them his readiness to 
undergo any investigation, but the convention 
declared that no investigation was necessary. 

The three Bishops named, then presented the 
Bishop of New Jersey for trial, and a sum- 
mons was issued to him to appear before the 
whole bench of Bishops, at Camden, on the 
24th of June. Later, as many of the Bishops 
desired to be in England at that time, and as 
no provision was made in the canons for an 
adjournment or postponement, a new present- 
ment was made, and a new summons issued, 
to appear before the court of Bishops on the 
7th of October. 

Without considering the details of the trial, 
it is enough to say that the complaint was dis- 
missed by the Bishops, without even proceed- 
ing to argument, on the ground that most of 
the matters had already been investigated by 



86 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

the convention of the diocese of New Jersey, 
which had yet refused to appear against their 
Bishop; and that another convention of the 
same diocese had already been called to con- 
sider the remaining specifications, which were 
new in the second presentment. 

On the 27th of the same month (October, 
1852), the Diocesan Convention of New Jersey 
again met. The charges were fully investi- 
gated by a committee, and when the conven- 
tion re-assembled, in December, the Bishop was 
vindicated almost unanimously. 

Again were the charges formally made by 
the same three Bishops, and the Bishop of New 
Jersey was again cited before the Bishops for 
trial. It was a complete vindication for him. 
Seventeen Bishops composed the court, and at 
length, by an unanimous vote, the presentment 
was dismissed, and the respondent discharged. 

So the terrible clouds which had gathered 
over the Bishop's head, gradually lifted ; but 
not before long furrows had been drawn across 
his countenance. The iron had entered into 
his soul. 

But though these troubles from without 



GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE. 87 

pressed hard upon him, a domestic sorrow 
was laid upon the Bishop of New Jersey in 
1855, which truly bore heavily upon the already 
broken-down man. His eldest son, George 
Hobart, whom, only seven months before, he 
had admitted to the diaconate, now abandoned 
the Church of his birth and was admitted into 
the Roman communion. On the 15th of Sep- 
tember, Bishop Doane performed the unusual 
and terribly hard duty, of pronouncing deposi- 
tion on his own son. 

Only a few more years were left to the 
Bishop. It was in the spring of 1859 that he 
finally succumbed. He had been making a 
visitation of remote portions of his diocese, 
travelling by carriage in almost incessant rain. 
His last sermon was preached at Red Bank, on 
Passion Sunday. He was then called home, and 
for little more than two weeks he lay helpless 
on his bed. It was on Wednesday in Easter- 
week, the 27th of April, 1859, that he passed to 
his rest. 

Bishop Doane's literary works are extensive. 
They include, not only the ordinary sermons, 
charges and addresses of a Bishop, valuable 



88 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

though those are, but also numerous orations 
delivered on public occasions, speeches, essays, 
reviews, etc. A defense of the Oxford Move- 
ment, issued from his pen just at the time when 
men generally, and Bishops in particular, were 
loudly denouncing it, is particularly strong. 
He was fearless always — so fearless, so pro- 
nounced, that upon him was heaped all the 
abuse which the Oxford movement received in 
its early days. 

The American Church may justly pride her- 
self on just such men as the elder Bishop 
Doane. They are the ones who, when tried, are 
not found wanting ; the ones who are not led 
astray by the popular voice, but remain firm as 
a rock, though turbulent storms of public opin- 
ion beat fiercely over them. It requires cour- 
age so to stand. Few are equal to it. One, at 
least, whose courage, whose steadfastness, 
whose firmness in maintaining the Faith can 
never be called into question, was George 
Washington Doane. 




JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, 
Bishop of Vermont. 



(VI.) JOHN HENRY HOPKINS 



BISHOP OF VERMONT. 



POUR priests knelt together at the altar 
rail in S. Paul's Chapel, New York, to 
receive consecration to the episcopate, on the 
31st of October, 1832. Each was a leader among 
men, and destined, no two in the same way, to 
leave a lasting mark upon the Church. These 
four were John Henry Hopkins, Bishop-elect 
of Vermont ; Benjamin Bosworth Smith, Bish- 
op-elect of Kentucky; Charles Pettit Mcllvaine, 
Bishop-elect of Ohio, and George Washington 
Doane, Bishop-elect of New Jersey. 

John Henry Hopkins was born in Dublin, 
Ireland, January 30th, 1792, and, with his par- 
ents, settled in Philadelphia in 1800. On reach- 
ing manhood, he began the study of law, and 
commenced a successful practice in Pittsburgh. 
He was organist and Sunday-school superin- 
tendent, and a leading member of Trinity 
Church. In 1823, the rectorship of the parish 

89 



90 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

being vacant, Mr. Hopkins was invited to be- 
come rector, when at the time he was not even 
a candidate for orders. Giving up a law prac- 
tice worth $5,000 a year and growing, to accept 
a parish at $800, Mr. Hopkins was received by 
Bishop White as a candidate. He was ordained 
deacon by Bishop White, December 14th, 1823, 
and priest the next year. 

Western Pennsylvania was very destitute of 
Church privileges at the time. It was not un- 
til 1825, that Bishop White made his first visit- 
ation in that portion, being in the thirty-ninth 
year of his episcopate. Mr. Hopkins made an 
attempt to found a theological seminary such 
as Bishop Chase was building in Ohio, but with- 
out success. In 1826, he sat in General Con- 
vention as a deputy from Pennsylvania, and 
was a leader in the opposition to a scheme of 
Prayer Book Revision that was then proposed, 
which he believed to be fraught with much 
danger. The matter is referred to in the chap- 
ter on Bishop Hobart, who had introduced the 
measure. 

In October of the same year (1826) was held 
in Pennsylvania an election for an Assistant 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 91 

Bishop, that created intense feeling. Mr. Hop- 
kins voted with the friends of Bishop White, 
who were known as " High-Churchmen. " Only 
one ballot was taken, without result, and the 
convention adjourned until the next regular 
convention, in May, 1827. 

The excitement in the meantime was at 
fever heat. Both sides caucused frequently. 
Among the High-Churchmen were Bishop 
White, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. De Lancey, afterward 
Bishop of Western New York, Mr. Kemper, 
afterward Missionary Bishop, and others. 

The High-Churchmen held a caucus and 
resolved to stand together. Nearly all of them 
favored supporting Mr. Hopkins for the Bish- 
opric. As, however, he declined to vote for 
himself in convention, they would thus lose 
one vote of their full strength. Accordingly, 
their support was given to the Rev. H. U. On- 
derdonk, D. D., a warm supporter of Bishop 
Hobart, in New York. 

The Low-Churchmen had originally sup- 
ported the Rev. William Meade, afterward 
Bishop of Virginia. At this time, however, he 
declined to allow his name to be used, disap- 



92 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

proving of some of the partisan measures of 
his supporters. 

When it was known that 26 out of 51 cler- 
ical voters (a majority of one) supported Dr. 
Onderdonk, the Low-Church side endeavored to 
prevent his election by offering to support Mr. 
Hopkins, if the High-Churchmen would return 
to him, their original choice. It was too late. 
They were pledged to support Dr. Onderdonk, 
to a man. So he was elected by a majority of 
one, of the clergy, and was at once confirmed 
by the laity. 

It was a decided victory for the High- 
Churchmen, but it was a mistake. The bad 
feeling resulting from the election, strength- 
ened party spirit in Pennsylvania, and the re- 
sult, in bitterness between the opposing sides, 
is felt throughout Pennsylvania, and particu- 
larly in Philadelphia, to-day. 

The failure of Mr. Hopkins' plan for the 
foundation of a theological seminary, induced 
him, in 1831, to accept a call as assistant min- 
ister to the Rev. George Washington Doane, 
D. D., at Trinity Church, Boston. His service 
here was short, as, in the succeeding year, 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 93 

Bishop Griswold having resigned his jurisdic- 
tion in Vermont, Mr. Hopkins was elected 
Bishop of Vermont, on the 31st of May. Dr. 
Doane, the rector, was elected Bishop of New 
Jersey on the 3d of October following. 

The General Convention of 1832 had before 
it the papers of four Bishops-elect. Of these, 
two elections were opposed. Dr. Doane's ene- 
mies had circulated false and malignant charges 
against him, and these must first be cleared. 
Dr. Mcllvaine's election in Ohio was believed 
by many to be unconstitutional, the validity of 
Bishop Chase's resignation having not yet been 
decided. The investigation of these two cases 
was not concluded until the end of the session. 
While, therefore, there was no objection raised 
to the confirmation of Dr. Hopkins, or of Dr. 
Smith, the Bishop-elect of Kentucky, they were 
forced to wait for consecration until all were 
passed upon together. 

On the 31st of October, the service was held 
in S. Paul's Chapel. A number of Bishops as- 
sisted the venerable Presiding Bishop in the 
service. Dr. Hopkins received his episcopal 
orders at the hands of Bishops White, of Penn- 



94 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

sylvania ; Griswold, of the Eastern Diocese, and 
Bowen, of South Carolina. 

Vermont was a hard field for a Bishop. 
Sparsely populated, it received little of the 
flood of emigration. The completion of the 
Erie canal and of early railroads, enabled the 
people to get away, and many of them moved 
on to the great West, then just commencing its 
wonderful development. 

The Church in Vermont had a small endow- 
ment which was under litigation. The Church 
won, but the feeling of the people was bitter 
against her. Having some money, but not 
enough, it was difficult to raise more. The 
Bishop attempted to inaugurate a plan for a 
theological seminary. He travelled abroad in 
search of assistance, but Bishop Chase had 
preceded him, with his wonderful stories of 
Ohio and Illinois, and Vermont, with its sparse 
and diminishing population, did not inspire 
enthusiasm. He was received kindly, but no 
one gave more than very small amounts. 
Among the subscribers were Dr. Pusey, Mr. 
Newman (whose guest the Bishop was in Ox- 
ford), John Keble and others. So also were 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 95 

the leading Low-Churchmen, including Lord 
Ashley, afterward Earl of Shaftesbury. 

Perhaps the trouble was, that Bishop Hop- 
kins was not committed to either side in the 
great controversy which then (1839) shook Eng- 
land's Church to the very foundation. The Bish- 
op was not one easily excited into controversy, 
and at that time, although in America as in 
England, Churchmen were ranged into oppos- 
ing camps, Bishop Hopkins was not reckoned 
on by either party as a fellow-partisan. He 
had voted for Dr. Onderdonk in 1827, and had 
caucused with the High-Churchmen, but had 
himself received the votes of the Low-Church- 
men when balloting had taken place. Hence, 
the Low-Churchmen, though bitter in their 
disappointment, were friendly to him. Again, 
in Boston, though assistant to Dr. Doane at 
Trinity Church, then the leading High-Church 
parish, Mr. Hopkins was understood to have 
voted with the Low-Churchmen in an attempt 
to reverse the policy of the diocese, to prevent 
Dr. Doane, the High-Church leader, from re- 
election on the Standing Committee, of which 
he had for many years been the leading spirit, 



96 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

and also to defeat his election as a deputy to 
General Convention. As Bishop, too, Bishop 
Hopkins had pursued an independent course. 
When, therefore, he proceeded to England, it 
was to find that Bishop Hobart had reaped the 
harvest from the High-Churchmen for the Gen- 
eral Seminary at New York, and Bishop Chase 
from the Low-Churchmen for Kenyonand then 
for Jubilee. Bishop Hopkins was received with 
courtesy from all sides, but the subscriptions 
were all very small. The plan for the estab- 
lishment of a theological seminary in Vermont 
failed, and the Bishop was thrown heavily into 
debt. He was indeed arrested in Boston for 
debt, but two friends at once went on his bail 
and released him. 

The Oxford Tracts were at first defended by 
Bishop Hopkins, but, later, after the secession 
of Newman, he seems to have changed his 
ground, and in " Letters on the Novelties that 
Disturb our Peace," he condemned them. Those 
were troublous days in the Church. The Bishop 
of New York was suspended for immorality, 
but many believed his staunch Churchmanship 
to have been the chief reason for his presenta- 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 97 

tion for trial. The Bishop of New Jersey was 
also tried, but the evidence against him was 
ridiculously small, and he was acquitted.* The 
history of it certainly looks like persecution of 
a pure and able Bishop. 

Bishop Hopkins was not only active in the 
House of Bishops, but also in literary work. 
Among his works at this time were a valuable 
commentary, a History of the Confessional, 
and the " Law of Ritualism." He also deliv- 
ered and published a series of lectures on 
slavery, taking the ground that it is certainly 
not condemned by the Bible, and had been 
allowed by the Church Catholic for nineteen 
centuries. 

This explains somewhat of the attitude of 
Bishop Hopkins during the Civil War. His 
sympathies were with the Union, and yet he 
did not change his convictions upon the sub- 
ject of slavery. The constitutional question 
of the right of secession, he proposed should 
be left to the Supreme Court. Throughout the 
war he opposed ■' political preaching." He 
would not allow the Church and the State to be 



* See pages 80-6 



98 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

confused. With his full consent, however, one 
of his sons, one son-in-law, two grandsons and 
three cousins were in the Union army. 

The General Convention of 1862 met in 
New York in October, almost on the eve of the 
State elections. That the sta/te of the country 
should be considered, was but natural. Pres- 
byterians, Methodists and others had been pro- 
fuse in their resolutions of loyalty. As a result, 
their organizations are split to-day. 

The Catholic Church is higher than the State. 
She must survive, though empires fall or repub- 
lics crumble away. The acts of the General 
Convention of 1862 upon the subject of the war 
would have a great effect upon the re-union of 
the Church after the war. Thus, the Church 
must act with great discretion. 

The key-note was struck by the Bishop of 
Michigan (McCoskry) in his opening sermon, 
wherein he referred to the introduction of pol- 
itics into our Church councils as " high treason 
against God." 

Politics certainly did enter into the House 
of Deputies. It could hardly be otherwise. 
The sessions were held in October, in New York 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 99 

City, and the State election, which would be 
held immediately afterward, was an event of 
untold interest throughout the country. Among 
the deputies from Western New York was the 
Hon. Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candi- 
date for Governor. Mr. Seymour's patriotism 
had been assailed by his political opponents. 
He must vindicate himself. The Democratic 
platform of that year favored the vigorous 
continuance of the war. 

In the Upper House the Bishop of Ohio 
(Mcllvaine) was in constant correspondence 
with the administration at Washington, and 
had even been abroad as the accredited agent 
of the United States. He had come directly 
from Washington to New York, and was under- 
stood to have submitted certain resolutions of 
loyalty, to Mr. Lincoln himself, before intro- 
ducing them in the House of Bishops. The 
Bishop of Maryland (Whittingham), too, agreed 
with his brother of Ohio, that General Conven- 
tion should pass resolutions indorsing the ad- 
ministration in the strongest terms. He had, 
indeed, lost many friendships in Maryland by 
his unswerving loyalty. 



100 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Bishop Hopkins was equally determined in 
opposition to anything of a political nature 
being considered by the House of Bishops. 
In the absence of the Bishop of Connecticut 
(Brownell), Bishop Hopkins was the Presiding 
Bishop. All his influence was directed against 
the political movement. 

In the House of Deputies the contest was 
very bitter. Early in the session did it begin. 
Mr. Brunot, of Pennsylvania, introduced a fiery 
preamble and resolution, which precipitated 
debate. It requested the House of Bishops to 

"* * * set forth * * * a special form of 
prayer, confessing and bewailing our manifold trans- 
gressions, pleading for God's forgiveness, begging that 
it may please Him to be the Defender and keeper of our 
national government, giving it the victory over all its 
enemies ; that He will abate their and our pride, assuage 
their malice and confound their devices, and, giving 
them better minds, forgive them for the evils they have 
wrought," etc. 

The resolution doubtless reflected the opin- 
ions of the vast majority of the deputies ; but a 
large number, and among them many of the 
best of them, opposed taking any action that 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 101 

would stand in the way of an ultimate friendly 
re-union between the North and the South. 

The first test of the house was on a vote to 
lay the resolution on the table, which was car- 
ried by a large majority of both orders. Gov- 
ernor Seymour, whose vote the politicians were 
eagerly looking for, voted with the minority 
against killing the resolution. It was the vote 
of the politician rather than of the Churchman. 
But the vast majority were agreed that no such 
action should be taken ; and among them were 
many prominent men, both in Church and 
State. Notwithstanding the vehement asser- 
tions of the enemies of the Church, the vote 
had no political significance whatever. Doubt- 
less there were among those voting with the 
majority a small number whose sympathies 
were with the South — notably the Maryland 
and Kentucky delegations, with a few others, 
which voted against the most carefully and 
kindly worded resolutions of loyalty, which 
finally prevailed. 

The number of firebrand resolutions subse- 
quently introduced was very large. These were 
referred to a committee of nine, who at length 



102 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

unanimously reported a series of resolutions of 
loyalty, in which the only reference to the ene- 
mies of the government was made in carefully 
restrained and courteous language. These 
were finally adopted near the close of the ses- 
sion by a large majority. It was a triumph of 
Churchmanship over political partisanship. 

The House of Bishops had passed through 
a similar conflict, which had reached the same 
conclusion. It was a cause of great distress to 
Bishop Mcllvaine. When the time came for 
the Bishops to issue their pastoral letter, ac- 
cording to a time -honored custom, the five 
senior Bishops present were appointed a com- 
mittee to draft the pastoral. These were the 
Bishops of Vermont (Hopkins), Kentucky 
(Smith), Ohio (Mcllvaine), Wisconsin (Kemper) 
and Michigan (McCoskry). Bishop Hopkins 
drew up such a letter, which did not refer to 
the existing state of the country. Bishop Mc- 
llvaine also presented a letter, which con- 
demned the rebellion in the strongest terms. 
Bishop Smith and Bishop McCoskry agreed 
with Bishop Hopkins, while Bishop Kemper 
inclined to Bishop Mcllvaine. 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 103 

It was clear that Bishop Hopkins' letter was 
supported by three of the five members of the 
committee, including its author. But here 
Bishop Hopkins' modesty appeared. He de- 
clined to stay in the committee and vote for 
his own paper, and consequently retired. Bish- 
op Mcllvaine was not affected in that way (and 
certainly there was no good reason why either 
should have been), and stayed. Accordingly 
there was a tie vote. 

The result was, that both pastorals were laid 
before the House of Bishops without recom- 
mendation. That of Bishop Mcllvaine was 
adopted. 

It was now Bishop Hopkins' turn to look 
defeat in the face, and he felt it very sorely. 
He prepared and read a solemn protest against 
the pastoral. When the two Houses gathered, 
at the close of the session, in S. John's Chapel 
for the closing services, the chair of the Presid- 
ing Bishop was conspicuously unoccupied dur- 
ing the reading of the pastoral. The document 
was read by Bishop Mcllvaine. 

We have already referred to Bishop Hopkins' 
" Bible Yiew of Slavery." 



104 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

In 1863, the pamphlet was taken up and cir- 
culated as a campaign document by the Demo- 
cratic party in Pennsylvania, which had reversed 
its sentiments on the conduct of the war. It 
was exceedingly unfortunate, in view of the 
Bishop's expressed desire to keep politics out of 
the Church. The Bishop of Pennsylvania, Dr. 
Alonzo Potter, was exceedingly annoyed by it. 
In connection with the Philadelphia clergy, he 
issued a Protest against the paper, and the Pro- 
test was sent to the country clergy of Pennsyl- 
vania with the request that they would sign at 
once and return it. 

General Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania and 
his defeat at Gettysburg had aroused Pennsyl- 
vanians to a fever heat. The Protest was 
widely signed. But Bishop Potter at once saw 
his mistake. He had practically required of his 
clergy, or at least invited, their signature to a 
semi-political document. To refuse was to in- 
vite the taunt of disloyalty, and, often, to be 
starved out by their parishioners. In a private 
circular to the clergy, therefore, Bishop Potter 
modified his request. The harm, however, had 
been done. 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 105 

In justice to Bishop Hopkins, it must be said 
that his pamphlet was wholly devoted to a 
Scriptural examination of the subject of slav- 
ery, with no intention of making it a political 
document. The whole occurrence was one of 
those unfortunate affairs that are inseparable 
from so violent a state of public opinion as 
predominated of necessity during the war. 

When hostilities were over, Bishop Hopkins 
had become Presiding Bishop, by the death of 
Bishop Brownell. Then was perhaps his great- 
est service to the Church, in paving the way 
for the return of the Southern Bishops and 
deputies. The Bishop of Georgia, Dr. Stephen 
Elliott, was a close personal friend, and Bishop 
Elliott had acted as Presiding Bishop of the 
Church in the South. 

In Louisiana, Bishop Polk had left his dio- 
cese and accepted a commission in the Confed- 
erate army as Major General. He died in 1864, 
being killed in battle. 

New Orleans was occupied by Federal troops 
early in the conflict. Thus, even had Bishop 
Polk been at liberty, a meeting of the diocesan 
convention was impracticable. The Standing 



106 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Committee was also scattered by the exigencies 
of war. Louisiana, therefore, never formally 
acted in union with the Church in the Confed- 
erate States. 

On January 1st, 1865, the eight clergy resid- 
ing in New Orleans joined in a request that 
Bishop Hopkins would visit them. The request 
was unanimous, and Bishop Kemper, among 
others, strongly urged him to go. Bishop Hop- 
kins, however, unwilling to force himself upon 
them, and doubtful how he would be received 
by the laity, made a condition that all the 
vestries of parishes within the Federal lines 
should unite in the request. The members of 
those vestries were individually willing, but 
declined to take corporate action. The Bishop 
therefore remained at home. In April, the 
Memphis clergy, seconded by the Standing 
Committee of Tennessee, made the same re- 
quest, Bishop Otey, their diocesan, having lately 
died ; but Bishop Hopkins, characterized by his 
excessive fear of forcing himself on others, 
declined this invitation also. 

Before the meeting of the General Conven- 
tion of 1865, Bishop Hopkins, as Presiding Bish- 



JOHN HENRY HOPKINS. 107 

op, addressed a letter of special invitation to 
all the Southern Bishops, including the Bishop 
of Alabama (Wilmer), who had been conse- 
crated during the war by action of the South- 
ern Bishops, and without making the promise 
of conformity to the Church in the United 
States. 

When the General Convention was opened 
in Philadelphia, Bishop Atkinson, of North 
Carolina, and Bishop Lay, of Arkansas, were 
present, and were received with joyful cordial- 
ity. In the House of Deputies, the Southern 
dioceses of Texas, North Carolina and Tennes- 
see were represented. The re-union was speed- 
ily made complete. The House of Bishops re- 
solved to receive Bishop Wilmer as Bishop of 
Alabama upon his making the required prom- 
ise of conformity, which he did. 

We can only briefly allude to the few re- 
maining years of the first Bishop of Vermont. 
His " Law of Ritualism " was widely discussed 
immediately after the war, and a number of 
Bishops signed a declaration against it, written 
by the Bishop of Western New York (Coxe). 
The opposition, however, fell flat when brought 



108 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

into General Convention in 1868. On the other 
hand, the Bishop's book was reprinted in Eng- 
land, the " English Church Union" voted to 
present a copy to every English Bishop, and 
that distinguished jurist, Sir Robert Philli more, 
cited it as authority in the Mackonochie case 
as one of "the writings of the late most dis- 
tinguished American prelate, the Bishop of 
Vermont." Bishop Hopkins introduced the use 
of colored stoles and altar lights into Vermont, 
in 1867. So long before as his rectorship in 
Pittsburgh (1823-1831) he had used wafer bread 
and the mixed chalice. 

Bishop Hopkins created much excitement at 
the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1867, by 
his bold and outspoken words on the subject 
of the Colenso schism in South Africa. 

He died in Burlington, Vermont, on the 9th 
of January, 1868, and is buried within the 
grounds adjoining the episcopal residence. 




JACKSON KEMPER, 
Bishop of Wisconsin. 

[From a Painting at the State Historical Society, Madison, Wis.] 



(VII.) JACKSON KEMPER 

FIRST BISHOP OF WISCONSIN. 

A NEW era opened before the American 
"^^ Church in 1835. It was in that year that 
she first entered upon real missionary work, by 
consecrating Bishop Kemper for the great and 
almost unknown Northwest. 

Jackson Kemper was born in New York 
State, December 24th, 1789, and was a disciple 
of Bishop Hobart, under whom he studied The- 
ology. Ordained deacon by Bishop White in 
1811, and priest in 1814, he early entered into 
missionary work, making tours of Western 
Pennsylvania as far as the Ohio border. Dur- 
ing the exciting days of the Onderdonk elec- 
tion in Pennsylvania, touched on in the arti- 
cle on Bishop Hopkins, Mr. Kemper was an 
ardent supporter of Bishop White, and voted 
with his friends for Bishop Onderdonk. 

From 1831, until his elevation to the episco- 

109 



110 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

pate, he was rector of S. Paul's Church, Nor- 
walk, Connecticut. 

In 1835, Mr. Kemper was elected and couse- 
crated Missionary Bishop of Missouri and Indi- 
ana, with jurisdiction all through the North- 
west. Illinois had already elected Bishop Chase 
to its episcopate, and the few scattered congre- 
gations in Michigan territory had placed them- 
selves under the charge of Bishop Mcllvaine, 
of Ohio. Thus, the title of Bishop Kemper's 
wide field was intended to cover everything 
else west of Ohio. 

He was a tireless missionary. Travelling 
slowly through Indiana, and visiting the sev- 
eral stations in that State, he finally reached 
St. Louis on the 19th of December, 1835, nearly 
three months after he had started from Phila- 
delphia. Here he made his home, and became 
rector of Christ Church, which had already 
been established. 

In his parochial work he was aided by assist- 
ants. In his missionary work, travelling by 
stage or by river, between rude settlements at 
long distances apart, he was a constant laborer. 

It was almost impossible to get any clergy 



JACKSON KEMPER. Ill 

to cross the Mississippi river into Missouri. 
The difficulty was so great that in the year 
after his consecration Bishop Kemper visited 
the East in search of funds, with which to es- 
tablish a missionary seminary. 

A considerable amount was raised. Ac- 
cordingly, the Bishop bought a tract of 125 
acres within five miles of St. Louis, and there 
Kemper College was built, and was named for 
the Bishop in his absence, and without his 
knowledge. 

For a few years the work prospered. Stu- 
dents increased — so did the debt. By the first 
of March, 1845, the debt was $17,500. The col- 
lege was closed on the first of April, and soon 
after, the whole property was sold for the debt. 
That property is now within the city limits of 
St. Louis, and is probably worth well up into 
the millions. It might have been an endow- 
ment for the whole diocese, if only the Church 
had sustained it ! 

In 1837, Bishop Kemper travelled through the 
Indian country, Kansas and Western Missouri. 

The great Southwest was in charge of Bishop 
Otey, of Tennessee. Early in 1838, the latter 



112 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

proposed to Bishop Kemper that they should 
jointly make a trip down the Mississippi, and so 
through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Geor- 
gia and Florida. The Bishop consented. On 
reaching Memphis, he received news of the ill- 
ness of Bishop Otey, with a request that he 
would himself make the visitation alone. Thus 
he boarded the steamer "Tuskina" and pro- 
ceeded down the Mississippi. He notes in his 
diary that he found a number of Church people 
at Memphis, with neither church nor minister. 
He held services at the school-house, at the 
Presbyterian church, and at a private house. 
At Vicksburg he found a clergyman settled, at 
which he expresses surprise. He describes the 
city as *' a very busy, nourishing place, greatly 
improved in morals, although still a pretty bad 
place." At Natchez he ordained a Mr. Pinch- 
ing, and then travelled on by carriage, over 
muddy roads and through swamps. He ordained 
and confirmed at Woodville, Mississippi, conse- 
crated a church at St. Francisville, Louisiana, 
and finally reached New Orleans. 

From thence the Bishop moved eastward, 
confirming many persons,including some slaves. 



JACKSON KEMPER. 113 

He travelled by rail to Mobile, up the Tombig- 
bee river to Columbus, Mississippi, thence by 
land across Alabama to Columbus, Georgia ; 
down the Chattahoochie river to the town 
bearing the same name ; thence to Tallahas- 
see and back to Chattahoochie again, finally 
reaching Pensacola. March and April were 
spent in travelling through Florida, Alabama 
and Mississippi, with innumerable adventures. 
Early in May he reached New Orleans, and 
proceeded back to St. Louis up the Mississippi 
river. 

After such a trip extending over four months, 
all of which was spent in "roughing it," it 
would seem as though the Bishop was entitled 
to a rest. But no ! He now turns northward 
and spends the summer of 1838, in his first visi- 
tation of Wisconsin. Two years before, the 
territory of Wisconsin had been formed, in- 
cluding not only the present State of that name, 
but Iowa and Minnesota also. Into that terri- 
tory large numbers of emigrants were now 
flocking, and a mission had been established at 
Milwaukee by the Rev. Isaac Hallam, rector of 
S. James' Church, Chicago. There was a resi- 



114 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

dent clergyman at Fort Crawford, near Green 
Bay, the Rev. Richard F. Cadle. 

All through this immense territory Bishop 
Kemper travelled and held services, mainly at 
forts near the Indian reserves, and at small 
frontier settlements. Having thus spent the 
summer, he went to Philadelphia to the Gen- 
eral Convention, which was in session in Sep- 
tember. Returning to his work again, he 
started out in search of a tribe of Mohawk 
Indians who, he had heard, were Christians, 
and were using a Prayer Book. He had trav- 
elled by stage and on horseback through Mis- 
souri, stopping at Boonville and other places. 

Here is Bishop Kemper's description of one 
of the nights of this trip : 

" There were two rooms, or rather two log huts con- 
nected together, into one of which we and another trav- 
eller were placed. It had no window, consequently 
the door was left open for light. Some newspapers were 
nailed on the logs, perhaps for ornament, or perhaps to 
keep out some of the air which rushed in through 
many an aperture. Every ten minutes two young men 
rushed in, with shoes covered with snow, to warm 
themselves, and thereby kept the floor and hearth wet. 
At our meals, the door was wide open to let in the 



JACKSON KEMPER. 115 

light, and then we were chilled to the heart and shak- 
ing while we were eating. Six of us slept in this mis- 
erable room, two in a bed." * 

At another time he notes that he was one 
of eleven to sleep in one log room, of whom 
one was a negro. 

The Mohawk Christianity proved to be of a 
weak character. Services had once been held 
by a man named Bowles, and afterward by an 
Indian named George Hill, but both had died, 
and services had been discontinued for four 
years. Hill's widow was a drunkard, but 
through her, Bishop Kemper obtained, for five 
dollars, a copy of the Prayer Book that had 
been used. It had been printed in England. 
One page was Mohawk and the next English. 
There were eighteen engravings, with a frontis- 
piece representing George III. and his queen, 
surrounded by Bishops and nobles, presenting 
Prayer Books to two Mohawks, who were kneel- 
ing, while a party of the same Indians was in 
the distance. 

It was in this year that Bishop Kemper de- 



* From Bishop Kemper's Diary, published in the Nashotah 
Scholiast, 1884-85. 



116 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

clined the episcopate of Maryland, to which 
he had been elected, choosing rather the hard 
work upon the Western frontier. 

In the summer of 1840, Bishop Kemper 
again visited the East, and spoke before the 
students of the General Theological Seminary 
upon the need of men and money for the West. 
As a result of this talk, seconded by a power- 
ful sermon from Professor Whittingham, then 
Bishop-elect of Maryland, four young men of- 
fered themselves for the work of an associate 
mission, and so, two years later, Nashotah was 
founded in Wisconsin territory.* 

Why JSTashotah succeeded when so many 
other efforts to found missionary seminaries 
to train men for the ministry in the far West 
failed, would be an interesting study. Perhaps 
one reason was that it was an associate mission, 
designed to do real missionary work after the 
style of the primitive Church. Be that as it 
may, Nashotah succeeded, and in a few years 
Bishop Kemper removed his home to that 
place. 

The work of the succeeding years was simi- 



* See chapter on James Lloyd Breck. 



JACKSON KEMPER. 117 

lar to this. Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Minne- 
sota, were successively formed into indepen- 
dent dioceses, and elected Bishops of their own. 
Wisconsin had been a diocese since 1847, and 
had, at its primary convention, elected Bishop 
Kemper as its diocesan. He declined, and re- 
mained the Missionary Bishop of the North- 
west, having charge also of Wisconsin, until 
1859. In that year he was again elected 
Bishop of Wisconsin, and accepted his election, 
retaining his old home at Nashotah. 

Wisconsin was still missionary ground for 
many years to come, and gave Bishop Kemper 
ample scope for the exercise of his missionary 
spirit. As a diocese it was rapidly becoming 
well known in the councils of the Church. By 
1865, there w T ere sixty clergymen in the State. 
The great DeKoven was at Racine, the faculty 
at Nashotah included the noble Dr. Cole, Dr. 
Adams, one of its original founders, Dr. Kem- 
per, the Bishop's own son, and Dr. Thompson, 
afterward Bishop of Mississippi. Wisconsin 
was preparing for an important part in the 
history of the Church in the next decade. 

Wisconsin is prominent in the American 



118 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Church for the high standing of its several in- 
stitutions. The establishment of Nashotah and 
Racine, while yet the State was missionary 
ground, brought to the diocese men of ability 
and talents seldom found on the frontier. An- 
other institution, for the planting of which the 
initial steps were taken during Bishop Kem- 
per's administration, was the Cathedral. 

There were at that time no Cathedrals in 
the American Church. There were dioceses 
and there were Bishops, but the idea of a cen- 
tral point from which the work of the diocese 
might proceed was lost sight of. A Bishop 
should have his own church wherein he can 
perform his official functions as by right. This 
should be the center from which should radiate 
the missionary work of the diocese. It should 
be in the city, the center of population, and its 
working staff should be active men with true 
missionary zeal. It should, in short, be a cen- 
tral missionary agency, with the Bishop at the 
head. This is the idea of a Cathedral as it 
early existed in Wisconsin. 

For a time, when yet Wisconsin was a wil- 
derness, Nashotah served as such a center. Or- 



JACKSON KEMPER. 119 

ganized as an associate mission, it became, ere 
many years had passed away, the home of the 
Bishop. From Nashotah emanated the mis- 
sionary work of the diocese. Her clerical staff 
planted the standards of the Cross everywhere 
within a radius of more than two hundred 
miles. The missionary and educational inter- 
ests were one. All were served under the same 
head. While Wisconsin was without cities, 
Nashotah was a Western adaptation of the 
Cathedral idea set into practice. 

But the tendency of population is toward 
cities. Missionary work must be most active 
where there are the most people. The center 
of missionary work must be the greatest cities, 
which are the centers of learning, of arts, and 
of civilization generally. 

Milwaukee was now a city of some conse- 
quence. As compared with other towns in 
Wisconsin, it was many times larger, and it 
was growing rapidly. That Milwaukee was 
destined to be the metropolis of the State, was 
an evident fact. 

Following upon this, was the certainty that 
in time the administration of the diocese must 



120 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

be from Milwaukee and not from Nashotah. It 
was not so by the arbitrary will of any one. 
Indeed, Bishop Kemper's home remained at 
Nashotah until the day of his death. It was, 
however, the irresistible tendency of the times 
It was therefore clear that the future Cathe- 
dral of Wisconsin, must be organized in Mil- 
waukee. Bishop Kemper was not blind to the 
fact. In 1866, he said in his annual address 
to the council : 

" I shall venture (perhaps from long habit) to view 
the whole Diocese as missionary ground, and shall 
probably continue so to do while bodily and mental 
strength are bestowed upon me. This view of duty, I 
must urge as an apology for not calling your attention 
to a Cathedral, an episcopal residence, and a fund for 
the support of your Bishop." 

Acting on the urgent request of the Bishop, 
who was now in his seventy-sixth year, the 
council at that same session, went into the 
election of an Assistant Bishop. The choice 
fell on the Rev. William Edmond Armitage, rec- 
tor of S. John's Church, Detroit, who according- 
ly received consecration, December 6th, 1866. 

One of the leading features of the work 



JACKSON KEMPER. 121 

assigned by Bishop Kemper to his Assistant, 
was the development of the Cathedral system 
in Milwaukee. It was work which Bishop 
Armitage's youth and talents especially fitted 
him for, while Bishop Kemper, with his increas- 
ing years, and his residence at JSTashotah, felt 
himself unequal to it. 

Bishop Armitage, acting under his superior, 
applied himself energetically to the work. 
There was, in Milwaukee, a weak organization 
known as Trinity Church, which was almost 
on the verge of failure. This Bishop Armitage 
took, changed the name to All Saints, and, 
arranging with the rector, wardens and vestry 
of S. Paul's Church, the nearest parish, as to 
boundary lines, made it the pro-Cathedral of 
the diocese. By 1868, he had obtained a more 
suitable location for the work, and proceeded 
to build thereon a small church edifice, which 
afterward became the chapel of the present 
Cathedral, and was torn down a few years 
since to make room for the new school and 
guild buildings. 

So favorably was this pro-Cathedral work 
received by the Bishop and the diocese, though 



122 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

it was also not without opposition, particularly 
in the see city, that the council of 1868 ad- 
dressed to General Convention a memorial on 
the subject of cathedrals, of which the follow- 
ing are some extracts : 

" The Church in the State of Wisconsin, assembled 
in convention in the City of Milwaukee, with the Bish- 
ops, clergy and laity, do respectfully represent : 

" First, that the episcopate is the Missionary Order 
of the Church, and has been so constitutionally from 
the beginning ; Bishops being not only successors of the 
Apostles, but themselves Apostles. ***** 

" And furthermore, that it is evident that from the 
earliest time, after the miraculous powers of the first 
band of the Apostles of Christ, those chosen by Him- 
self, came to an end, the place for the Apostle or Bishop 
was in the city, as the center of population, of wealth, 
of intelligence, and all progress of doctrine and prop- 
agation of ideas. ******* And in the 
city was the Bishop's Church or Cathedral, the Mother 
Church of the whole diocese, and the Bishop's residence 
at the center of his work, the very focus of all influences 
whereby the propagation of the Gospel can be organ- 
ized, pressed on, or facilitated. 

" The Church in Wisconsin, being convinced that 
these facts are true, and that they make the only basis 
whereupon the Church can be organized so as to have 



JACKSON KEMPER. 123 

her fall power to do the work that God has placed be- 
fore her in this great land, * * * * requests of 
the General Convention to enact an article with these 
provisions: 

"First. Recognizing the principle of the See, and 
providing that there should be ultimately a Bishop of 
the Church, with his Bishop's Church or Cathedral in 
every city of the land," etc.* 

That Bishop Kemper was in full sympathy 
with this Cathedral work, is shown, among 
other ways, by the following extract from 
Bishop Armitage's address in 1869: 

" I may be expected to speak of the progress of the 
work intrusted to me by the Bishop and virtually by the 
convention, on my first coming to the diocese, viz., 
the establishment of the See principle, the gradual 
erection of Milwaukee into the See of Wisconsin * * 

* * * * with ike Bishops approval in every impor- 
tant step, and with his kind confidence throughout. * 

* * * * * * * rp WQ y ears i n ah Saints' Church, 

the congregation of which has been forced reluctantly 
to organize as a parish, have furnished valuable experi- 
ence towards a Bishop's Church or Cathedral, when the 
time shall come for that." f 



* Journal General Convention, 1868, pages 389, 390. 
f Journal Diocese of Wisconsin, 1869, pages 29, 30. 



124 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

On All Saints' Day of that same year, 1869, 
Bishop Kemper laid the corner stone of All 
Saints' Church — the chapel before referred to, 
which stood, when first erected, at the head of 
Division street (now Juneau avenue), overlook- 
ing the blue waters of Lake Michigan, and was 
afterward removed to the block now occupied 
by the Cathedral property, on the same street. 

But Bishop Kemper's days were fast draw- 
ing to an end. He died at his home near Nash- 
otah, May 24th, 1870, and was buried in the 
cemetery of Nashotah. When, later, Kemper 
Hall was founded at Kenosha, as a memorial 
to the first Bishop of Wisconsin, the 24th of 
May was set apart as a memorial day to its 
founders, and to the memory of Bishop Kem- 
per. " Founders' Day " it remains to-day. 




WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 



[From a Steel Engraving.] 



(viii.) William Augustus Muhlenberg 

THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATOR. 

XTOT a Bishop, but a Priest; and perhaps 
the most original character in the his- 
tory of the American Church. He seems to 
have been a disciple of nobody, and no one fol- 
lowed in exactly his footsteps; and yet his 
influence upon the Church was greater, per- 
haps, than that of any other man. 

Dr. Muhlenberg never professed to be a theo- 
logian. Sympathizing with the Low-Church- 
men of his day in theology, he yet revived the 
cardinal principle of ivorship as fully as did 
Pusey or DeKoven, and his practical work in 
the Church was the foundation and pattern of 
an untold amount of Church work to-day. 

Born of a well-known German-Lutheran 
family, in 1796, in the city of Philadelphia, the 
young Muhlenberg early became associated 
with the Church, and, after receiving his edu- 
cation at the University of Pennsylvania, he 

12t 



126 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

was ordained by the venerable Bishop White, 
and became his assistant at the united parish 
of Christ, S. Peter's and S. James', Philadel- 
phia. Mr. Kemper, afterward Missionary Bishop 
of the Northwest, was a senior assistant at the 
same time. After his advancement to the 
priesthood, in 1820, Mr. Muhlenberg became 
rector of S. James' Church, Lancaster, Penn- 
sylvania. 

It was while in Lancaster, that Mr. Muh- 
lenberg first began to obtain notice as a hymn 
writer. His well-known hymn, " I would not 
live alway," was one of his earliest and best 
known, though he himself, and other musical 
critics, pronounced it far from his best. The 
hymnology of the American Church at that 
time was most meagre, the Prayer Book con- 
taining fifty-six hymns, most of which were 
attempts at improvements of the Book of 
Psalms. Mr. Muhlenberg tried to have a 
hymnal commission appointed by the General 
Convention of 1821, but failing in this, he issued 
a selection of hymns under the title of "Church 
Poetry." The next General Convention ap- 
pointed Mr. Muhlenberg one of a joint com- 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 127 

mittee on Psalms and Tunes. In 1826, the new 
selection of hymns was adopted, and included 
four of Mr. Muhlenberg's. 

It was in about his thirtieth year, that Mr. 
Muhlenberg began the first attempt in this 
country to found an institution of Christian 
learning. The "Flushing Institute," on Long 
Island, was established as a home school under 
Mr. Muhlenberg's personal care, and not only 
were the boys under him thoroughly instructed 
in grammar school accomplishments, but they 
were also trained up to follow the Church's 
idea of services and the Christian Year. Daily 
services were held, and attendance was obliga- 
tory. The Sunday services were unique at 
that time, 1826 - 1835. They were strictly 
Churchly, and the ritual included pictures and 
flowers, altar lights and incense. The psalms 
were chanted, and litanies for the seasons, 
taken from ancient missals, were revived and 
sung. Christmas and Easter were gorgeous 
festivals. One of Dr. Muhlenberg's "boys," 
the Rev. Dr. Van Bokkelen, thus describes the 
services for those festivals: 

" Then the chapel was brilliant and fragrant. The 



128 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

altar wore its vestment of white and shone with lights. 
There was the picture of the Madonna wreathed with 
evergreens, surrounded by flowers exhaling fragrance 
as incense to the Lord. This was the beginning and the 
perfection of aesthetic ritualism. ***** 
These chapel services, as has been said, antedated that 
general revival of ritual which came with the teaching 
of Keble's ' Christian Year,' when the Flushing Insti- 
tute was the only true Christian family school of our 
Church, when Lent was not kept with daily prayer, 
and when Christmas was a day of merry-making. Thus 
the school at Flushing was a teacher of the whole 
Church. 

" Lent was especially observed. 

" Holy Week was holy indeed, with penitential con- 
fessions and prayers ; its solemn Miserere culminating 
in the impressive office of Good Friday, when the altar 
was vested with black, and over it hung the picture 
of the crucifixion." * 

This work expanded so that Dr. Muhlenberg 
obtained additional land at College Point, Long 
Island, and commenced the erection of a fine 
plant of buildings to be known as S. Paul's 
College. The financial panic of 1837 stopped 
the work, and it became necessary to erect 
humbler buildings for the institution. The 
Eev. J. B. Kerfoot, afterward Bishop of Pitts- 



* See Anne Ayres' Life of Dr. Muhlenberg. 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 129 

burgh, himself a graduate of the Flushing In- 
stitute, was one of the assistants. The services 
were still kept up to their Churchly ideals. 
Much attention was given to the subject of 
music, and Dr. Muhlenberg's well-known carol, 
u Carol, brothers, carol/' was written at this 
time, as well as several others. 

Fifteen years of scholastic life forced Dr. 
Muhlenberg to seek a rest, and accordingly he 
spent the summer of 1843 in England. Here, 
for a time, he fell under the influence of New- 
man and Pusey; but the secession of the for- 
mer from the Anglican communion seems to 
have turned him backward; and as we have be- 
fore remarked, Dr. Muhlenberg was no theolo- 
gian. His heart was leading him to a better con- 
ception of God and the Church than his mind 
ever knew; and it was the direct influence of 
the Flushing Institute and S. Paul's College, 
that made Christian education to be more fully 
developed in other institutions, particularly at 
S. James' College, in Maryland, and at S. Paul's 
School, at Concord, New Hampshire. 

The next work of Dr. Muhlenberg was in New 
York City, and began a new phase of Church 



130 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

life, which may be said to have ushered in al- 
most the whole of the Church life of to-day. 

The Church of the Holy Communion, in New 
York, was built by a sister of Dr. Muhlenberg, 
Mrs. Mary A. Rogers, as a free church where 
rich and poor might have equal rights as alike 
children of their heavenly Father in their 
Father's house. It was the first free church in 
the American Church, and was planned by Dr. 
Muhlenberg, who became its first rector. The 
corner stone was laid on the 24th of July, 1844. 
It was in 1846 that he removed from College 
Point to his new home in the great city. 

It was just before this that Dr. Muhlenberg 
organized the first sisterhood in the American 
Church. It took root from a sermon which he 
preached in the little chapel of S. Paul's Col- 
lege, on the subject of Jephtha's Vow. One 
woman who heard him resolved to consecrate 
the remainder of her life to religious work for 
her Saviour. She was accordingly admitted as 
the first of the Sisters of the Holy Communion. 

At the Church of the Holy Communion, Dr. 
Muhlenberg established the first weekly cele- 
bration of the Holy Communion in this coun 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 131 

try. He was the first also to introduce daily 
services, the division of the offices on Sunday 
into separate services, chanting the psalter, 
the weekly offertory, congregational singing, 
preaching in the surplice, the especial solem- 
nities of Holy Week, the celebration of the 
Epiphany with an offering of silver and gold 
for Missions. He also was the first to give 
attention to practical work for the bodies of 
men, such as is now done in every parish. He 
organized an Employment society for women ; 
provision for assisting the poor at Thanksgiv- 
ing Day ; the " Fresh Air Fund," to give the 
poor people of the tenement house district a 
breath of fresh air on Long Island ; the work 
of the Sisterhood in the Church Dispensary, 
Church Infirmary and Church schools. In 1847, 
he lighted the first Christmas tree for poor 
children in a school room, gifts for them being 
provided by the children of wealthier parents, 
and at the festival, Christmas carols were sung. 
He also dispensed with the old-fashioned high 
soft hassock, designed to assist people to keep 
from kneeling, and substituted low kneeling- 
benches, teaching the congregation to kneel 



132 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

upon their knees. He was horrified at the idea 
of ownership of pews in God's house. On this 
subject he once scribbled off the following : 

" Lines on a Pew Auction. 

11 If the Saviour drove out of the temple of old 
Poor, ignorant Jews, who bought there and sold, 
What would He to Christians, so given to pelf, 
As traffic to make of the temple itself! 
Woe, woe to the Church ruled by Mammon-made lords, 
When He cometh again with the scourge of His cords." 

He thus described the origin of the high- 
backed pews: 

" Bishop Burnet complained that the ladies of the 
Princess Anne's establishment did not look at him while 
preaching his 'thundering long sermons,' as Queen 
Mary called them, but were looking at other objects. 
He therefore, after much remonstrance on their impro- 
priety, prevailed on Queen Anne to order all the pews 
in S. James' Chapel to be raised so high that the fair 
delinquents could see nothing but himself when he was 
in the pulpit." 

At another time, when some one objected to 
the use of a processional cross, Dr. Muhlen- 
berg replied : 

" Ah ! well, then we will change the processional to: 
1 Onward, Christian soldiers, 
Marching as to War ; 
With the Cross of Jesus 
Stuck behind the door!' " 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 133 

The first surpliced choir in America was 
organized by Dr. Muhlenberg at the Church of 
the Holy Communion. It created a great deal 
of opposition, but was successful nevertheless. 

S. Luke's Hospital was organized in connec- 
tion with the same parish. On S. Luke's Day, 
in 1846, without previous notice, he suggested 
that one-half the offertory for the day should 
be laid aside as the beginning of a hospital 
fund, and that the same thing should be done 
on each successive S. Luke's Day. The offer- 
ings amounted to $30.00, one-half of which 
was duly set aside. Cholera visited this coun- 
try in 1849, and the need of such a hospital 
was so intense that the money was speedily 
raised. The hospital was incorporated in May, 
1850. Dr. Muhlenberg's plans included con- 
veniences for the sisters, who, he intended, 
should be in charge. The trustees unanimously 
declined to build in that way. When, how- 
ever, the hospital was opened, the sisters were 
placed in charge, and rapidly won the respect 
and the love of the public. 

The Sisterhood of the Holy Communion was 
regularly organized in 1852, the sisters having 



134 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

before that been without any regular organiza- 
tion. It was necessary, however, to appear 
frequently in print in defense of the commu- 
nity. Protestant antagonism ran high. But 
the battle was won, and the sisters remained. 

The "Memorial Movement " of 1853 was the 
personal work of Dr. Muhlenberg. This was an 
appeal addressed by a number of clergy to the 
House of Bishops, praying them to take some 
steps looking toward the unity of Christendom, 
particularly by granting to individual Bishops 
a greater discretion as to whom they would or- 
dain, and by providing for a greater flexibility 
in the use of the Book of Common Prayer. 

" That they all may be one !" It was the 
eucharistic prayer of Jesus Christ on the eve 
of the great Sacrifice. Holy men have longed 
for it and worked for it, and to-day the great 
heart of the Church is sighing " How long, 
Lord? " and is yearning to draw closer to her- 
self all those wandering ones who know not 
their holy mother. Many an effort has been 
made toward the reconciliation of the sects 
with the Church. How much has come from 
these efforts, we cannot be sure. Many of 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 135 

them seem to us ill advised. To ignore differ- 
ences between others and ourselves is not to 
erase them. To surrender one item of The 
Faith committed to the Church as a keeper, is 
impossible. Only God can tell what will finally 
bring together the divided elements. But of 
one thing we may be sure : to be untrue to 
the Church can never be of lasting service to 
her. Peace is pleasant, but better to fight 
valiantly for her, than to surrender one inch 
of her ground ! 

The Memorial had little immediate effect. 
A Commission on Christian Unity was appoint- 
ed by the House of Bishops. At the next ses- 
sion of General Convention, held in Philadel- 
phia in 1856, the House of Bishops made a 
declaration that "the order of Morning Pray- 
er, the Litany and the Communion Service, 
being three separate offices, may, as in former 
times, be used separately under the advice of 
the Bishop of the diocese." It seems strange 
now, that such a declaration was necessary ; 
but at that time the usual morning service 
was the combined use of Morning Prayer, Lit- 
any and ante-Communion, with infrequent and 



136 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

oftentimes irregular, celebrations of the Holy 
Communion, added after the main service had 
been finished. 

The Commission on Christian Unity was au- 
thorized to confer with other Christian bodies, 
but no practical results came from it. Per- 
haps, however, the agitation of the subject of 
the division of Christendom did some good in 
an educational way. 

The last great work of Dr. Muhlenberg was 
begun in 1866, in his seventieth year. This 
was the establishment of a Church village on 
Long Island, which he named Saint Johnland. 
The intention was to transplant poor families 
from the tenement houses of New York, to the 
purer air in the country. The corporation 
was to erect cottages and rent them to such 
families at a very low rate. It was an experi- 
ment in Christian Socialism, and it was not 
altogether successful. The poor people refused 
to be transplanted, and preferred the poisoned 
air and the overcrowded condition of the tene- 
ments, to the fresh seaside home at Saint John- 
land. However, a successful home for aged 
men, several houses for children, an industrial 



WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG. 137 

school, a school house, a library and village 
hall, a beautiful church, the "Church of the 
Testimony of Jesus," with a few cottages, were 
built and are successfully maintained to-day. 
It is out of debt, and has a considerable en- 
dowment. As a plan to counteract the social 
evils of the tenement houses, however, it did 
not succeed. 

Herein lies a condition for social reformers 
to consider. Saint Johnland, as conceived by 
Dr. Muhlenberg, had features very similar to 
those lately announced by "General" Booth, 
of the Salvation Army, in his much-heralded 
work, " In Darkest England." His scheme for 
a transplanted colony of the " submerged teuth " 
was very like Dr. Muhlenberg's dream of Saint 
Johnland, which was submitted to a practical 
test and was found wanting. The social re- 
former who would do something of lasting 
benefit — who would be a worker and not a 
theorizer — must keep in mind this strange ele- 
ment of the case : the tenement house popula- 
tion ivill not be removed from the cities. 

This was the last of the great works of Dr. 
Muhlenberg, and was the joy of his declining 



138 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

years. These were years of work, seeking to 
pour oil upon the troubled waters of ecclesias- 
tical seas, which in those days were turbulent. 
He died on the 6th of April, 1877, at his home 
in Saint Johnland, and was sincerely mourned 
by hundreds whom he had befriended. 

We have said before, that Dr. Muhlenberg 
was no theologian. He called himself an 
"Evangelical Catholic." He believed thorough- 
ly in standing closely by the name of " Cath- 
olic," and so far back as 1851 made a grand 
vindication of the name. His efforts to call 
down a new life into the Church, into her wor- 
ship and into her work, were wonderfully suc- 
cessful, and have permeated the whole Church 
of to-day. What he did, has been a tremen- 
dous power for good in the Church. The 
Flushing Institute, S. Paul's College, the Church 
of the Holy Communion, S. Luke's Hospital, 
were each the first to do a definite work, and a 
work that has now spread throughout the land. 
The Church can never have another Muhlen- 
berg. He was a unique character who will be 
remembered most for his own personality. His 
work remains as a perpetual monument to him. 
The Church will always honor his memory. 




JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 



(IX.) JAMES LLOYD BEECK 

ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF NASHOTAH. 

' 1 "HE story of the founding of Nashotah ! It 
reads like a chapter from the history of 
the days of romance and poetry, of knights and 
of crusaders. 

It originated with a small band of students 
at the General Theological Seminary, after 
hearing an eloquent appeal of Bishop Kemper 
for men to go into the West and claim it for 
Christ. Among the students were James Lloyd 
Breck, the subject of this paper ; John Henry 
Hobart, a son of the great Bishop of New York ; 
William Adams, whom Breck described in a 
letter as "a young Irishman of very quick 
parts,'' and James W. Miles, of South Carolina. 

James Lloyd Breck was born within the 
present limits of the city of Philadelphia, and 
received his education under Dr. Muhlenberg 
at the Flushing Institute. When, therefore, 

139 



140 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

he took up theological studies at the General 
Seminary, he was fired with some of Dr. Muh- 
lenberg's zeal for the spread of Christ's king- 
dom. 

After Bishop Kemper's visit, the four young 
men named, resolved to unite in an associate 
mission, to be established under that Bishop, 
the members to live a religious life together, 
with suitable daily devotions, and to do active 
missionary work from their mission, as well as 
to train up for the ministry, such young men 
of the West as might be useful. Dr. Muhlen- 
berg was in full sympathy with the plan, as 
was also Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, of New York ; 
and Professor Whittingham, then Bishop-elect 
of Maryland, and closing up his work at the 
Seminary, assisted them with his advice. A 
private manual of prayers was prepared for 
their use by Dr. Whittingham. The Missionary 
Board approved the plan, and granted them 
small stipends. The young missioners re- 
solved that their habit should be a cassock, of 
coarse cloth in winter, and of lighter material 
in summer. As the religious life of a brother- 
hood is one of strict rule and obedience, the 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 141 

choice of a Superior was important. The Rev. 
J. B. Kerfoot, Dr. Muhlenberg's most trusted 
assistant, afterward Bishop of Pittsburgh, was 
importuned to go, but could not leave his edu- 
cational work. At the recommendation of 
Bishop Kemper, therefore, the Rev. Richard F. 
Cadle, who was about to resign a chaplaincy in 
the United States Army, and who was stationed 
at Fort Crawford, near Green Bay, in Wisconsin 
territory, was invited to become the Superior 
of the Order, and he accepted. 

But then difficulties arose. Deacons are 
subject entirely to their Bishops. The Bishop 
of South Carolina, Dr. Gadsden, declined per- 
emptorily to allow Mr. Miles to go, saying 
South Carolina needed him. Mr. Breck and 
Mr. Hobart belonged to Pennsylvania. Bishop 
Kemper had already secured from the Bishop 
of Pennsylvania (H. U. Onderdonk), his promise 
to transfer Mr. Breck to the Northwest mission. 
To Mr. Hobart, however, he declared that he 
wholly disapproved of the mission, thought 
Hobart ought not to go, and desired him also 
to express his disapproval to Mr. Breck. 

Phases of Churchman ship have changed 



142 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

very much since then. Bishop Onderdonk had 
been elected in Pennsylvania as an " extreme " 
High Churchman, and was one of the leaders 
of that wing. His election* had filled the Low 
Churchmen with serious alarm. But the plans 
for Nashotah seemed the wildest deviations 
from the commonplace. An associate mission 
of celibate priests in the Episcopal Church ? 
Cassocks for the daily garb, a daily office of 
prayer, life under a Superior ? Why, that could 
only be the rising of a new order of Jesuits in 
the Episcopal Church, reasoned Bishop Onder- 
donk, the High-Church leader. What wonder, 
then, that Nashotah was almost the synonym 
of Popery to the Low-Church mind ? 

Bishop Otey, of Tennessee, also visited the 
Seminary, and discouraged the plan. Bishop 
Onderdonk, however, finally allowed his two 
deacons to go, and they, with Mr. Adams, placed 
themselves under Bishop Kemper and Father 
Cadle, their Superior. 

Wisconsin was fixed upon by Bishop Kem- 
per as the place for the associate mission. Mr. 
Hobart went on in advance. On Wednesday 



* See page 92. 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 143 

night, September 1st, 1841, Messrs. Breck and 
Adams, having already been ordained to the 
diaconate, left New York City for what was 
then the far West. Twenty-four hours later, 
they had just reached Syracuse. There they 
boarded a canal-boat, and by Friday morning 
were in Oswego. All day was spent there, and 
at 6 p. m. they started in a thunder-storm by 
steamer on Lake Ontario, and experienced the 
sensations of travelling on a turbulent lake. 
It was nearly noon of Saturday, when they 
reached Lewiston, at the west end of the lake. 
Horse cars took them from thence to Niagara 
Falls, twelve miles distant. Here, after trav- 
elling three days and three nights, all within 
the State of New York, they rested over Sun- 
day, preaching at the church for the rector, 
the Rev. Mr. Porter — Mr. Adams in the morn- 
ing and Mr. Breck at night. 

On Monday morning at six o'clock, the mis- 
sion ers resumed their journey, travelling by 
rail to Buffalo. They made an early call on 
the Rev. Dr. Shelton, and at eleven o'clock, 
embarked by steamer on Lake Erie. Here, 
much to their surprise, they were joined by 



144 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

their Superior, Father Cadle, who had been 
East, and started to return a few days in ad- 
vance of his younger associates, but missed the 
boat in Buffalo and had to wait three days 
for the next. By Tuesday morning, the boat 
touched Cleveland. Tuesday night was spent 
in the steamboat calmly lying off the dock at 
Detroit. Next morning, after passing into Lake 
Huron, Mr. Breck notes that a storm arose, and 
he was "taken sick with a bilious attack" 
— not an uncommon symptom. "Even Mr. 
Adams " was sick, Mr. Breck acids. The steam- 
boat was obliged to put in at harbor, and remain 
a few hours. Mackinaw was reached in the 
night. On Thursday and Frida}^ little progress 
was made, owing to the storm. At midnight 
of Saturday, Milwaukee was reached, and after 
travelling more than ten days from New York, 
the weary travellers were at the end of the 
first part of their journey. 

At Milwaukee, the Rev. Lemuel B. Hull was 
rector of S. Paul's, the only church. He was 
doubtless glad to receive his clerical visitors, 
and Father Cadle preached in the morning, 
Mr. Adams in the afternoon, and Mr. Breck at 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 145 

night. Mr. Hobart joined them next clay, hav- 
ing walked in from Prairieville (now Waukesha) 
in which village, then young and "booming," 
he had held service. He reported that there 
was no room of &xiy sort for them there, where 
they were to locate. After waiting a week or 
more, they went on to Prairieville, and located 
temporarily in a small room adjoining the 
post-office. 

The associate mission of JSTashotah was orig- 
inally founded upon something like monastic 
principles. T he missioners were united together 
for religious, devotional, and missionary work. 
Their poverty was assured by the conditions of 
the work, each was unmarried, and their joint- 
ly working together was a substitute (which 
proved inadequate) for the obedience in a mo- 
nastic order. Their first Superior, Father Caclle, 
remained with them only the first winter, be- 
fore Nashotah itself had been founded. Mr. 
Breck, who succeeded him, was young and inex- 
perienced, but was thoroughly devoted to the 
system in vogue. At the same time, there had 
been no formal vows of any sort. 

For a time the three young men worked to- 



146 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

gether in perfect unison, and Bishop Kemper 
was much with them. In 1844, he removed his 
residence to Nashotah. He, however, was away 
from home more, even, than is usual for a Bishop 
of to-day. Travelling was slow, and his terri- 
tory was vast and was growing, as the hardy 
pioneers pushed on into the Western wilder- 
ness. 

Mr. Hobart returned after the first year, 
to the East. Mr. Adams also left Nashotah, 
but returned again in 1844. The educational 
aspect of the work was becoming more impor- 
tant, and the demands on Mr. Breck's time and 
resources were great. Then a board of trustees 
was formed, and the missioners were made sub- 
ject to them. Mr. Breck complained that all 
the work of the " religious system" other than 
the purely educational work, was left to him. 
About this time, Mr. Adams, his co-worker, 
married a daughter of Bishop Kemper. 

In 1850, Mr. Breck returned for the first time 
to the East, to solicit funds. He was enthusiast- 
ically received everywhere, Nashotah's fame 
having been well spread. He accomplished his 
purpose to some extent, but concluded finally 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 147 

that the system under which he desired to work 
could no longer be tried at Nashotah. Still 
believing in the system, and anxious to do more 
work for the Church, he resolved, with the per- 
mission of Bishop Kemper, to resign his work 
there, and to penetrate still further West, into 
the territory of Minnesota, which was under 
the same Bishop. Only one clergyman of the 
Church was then in the territory — the Rev. Mr. 
Gear, chaplain at Fort Snelling. 

So a new associate mission was formed, the 
Rev. Timothy Wilcoxsen, of Connecticut, and 
the Rev. John Austin Merrick, of Philadelphia, 
uniting with Mr. Breck. They made a short 
stay at Nashotah, where a touching farewell 
service was held, and then pushed on. Sunday, 
June 23d, 1850, was spent at La Crosse, Wiscon- 
sin, on the Mississippi River, where was held 
the first Church service ever celebrated there. 
Next morning, they crossed over into Minnesota 
territory, where they reared a rustic cross and 
celebrated the Holy Eucharist. 

The missioners located at Saint Paul, and at 
once purchased two acres of land overlooking 
the city, for which Mr. Breck notes that they 



148 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

paid "the extravagant cost of $50 per acre." 
The tract is now in the heart of the city, and is 
worth a fabulous amount. From their head- 
quarters at Saint Paul, they made missionary 
journeys to all the country around, and estab- 
lished the Church everywhere, extending their 
care even as far as La Crosse, two hundred miles 
distant by river. On Cood Friday, 1851, Mr. 
Breck notes with thankfulness, that " there are 
now eight communicants in Saint Paul." They 
had also built a little church, which Bishop 
Kemper consecrated in August. 

In 1852, work was commenced among the 
Indians — principally Chippewas. So promising 
did this become, that Mr. Breck removed from 
Saint Paul, and went among the Indians, locat- 
ing his home at Kahgeeashkoonsikag — which 
seems a euphonious and easy name, when we 
learn that another mission was planted at Kah- 
sahgawsquahjeomokag, and that Mr. Breck fre- 
quently dated his letters from Nigigwaunowah- 
sahgahigaw ! A number of churches were 
founded in the Indian field, and many converts 
made. Mr. Breck finally retired altogether 
from the white field, and leaving that to others, 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 149 

he gave his whole attention to the work among 
the Indians. In 1S55, Mr. Breck married Miss 
Jane Maria Mills, a worker, like himself, among 
the Indians. 

The practically unrestricted sale of whisky 
among the Indians, and the withdrawal of 
troops by the United States government, nearly 
caused all traces of the missions to be wiped 
out. Unruly and drunken Indians made much 
trouble. Finally, his life and the lives of his 
family being in imminent danger, Mr. Breck 
withdrew from the Indian country, in 1857, and 
settled at Faribault. 

No theological work had heretofore been 
attempted in Minnesota, owing to a wish of Dr. 
Breck, not to appear to antagonize Nashotah in 
any way. But now the time seemed ripe when 
young men might be gathered in Minnesota 
and be instructed for the Church's ministry. 
Accordingly, the educational institutions of 
Faribault were founded. With these in view, 
Mr. Breck again visited the East. He organized 
in Faribault, a university and theological sem- 
inary, and also kept the oversight of the work 
among the Indians. Bishop Whipple was con- 



150 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

secrated as Bishop of Minnesota in 1859, and 
was heartily interested in Faribault, establish- 
ing his Cathedral there. Mr. Breck became a 
D. D. in 1860. 

The Indian missions reached their crisis in 
1862, when the Indians took advantage of the 
Civil War to perform horrible massacres and 
devastation. The Christian Indians suffered 
terrible persecution. All the missionaries es- 
caped, some of them by a hair's breadth. It 
was a terrible chapter in the history of Minne- 
sota. The reality of the conversion of many 
was proved, however, in that they stood firm 
in the day of trial. 

Once again Dr. Breck moved on to the ex- 
treme Western frontier. He had now spent 
twenty-five years in pioneer work, and the re- 
straints of civilization all around him were not 
easy to bear. So, again, the devoted missionary 
looked toward the setting sun, and took up his 
work. In the fall of 1867, he sailed from New 
York for California, by way of the Isthmus of 
Panama. After a voyage of twenty-four days, 
the party arrived in San Francisco, on Novem- 
ber 3d. 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 151 

California had already been under a Bishop, 
the venerable Bishop Kip, for fourteen years. 
Where, at Bishop Kip's coming in 1853, there 
was only one clergyman, now there were thirty- 
eight. But these were for the most part men 
ordained in the East, and there was no training 
school for candidates for orders on the whole 
Pacific coast. 

At this time the buildings, furniture and 
site, of the " Benicia Collegiate Institute " were 
offered for sale at a low price. They were sit- 
uated at Benicia^ comprised thirty-five acres, 
and were within thirty miles of San Francisco. 
At Benicia, therefore, ,Dr. Breck founded the 
" Missionary College of S. Augustine," purchas- 
ing the buildings already erected. The main 
building was devoted to theological studies, 
and was called Epiphany Hall. In four months 
Epiphany Hall had eight students. There was 
also a grammar school in operation. By 1870, 
the boys' school had eighty-five boarding schol- 
ars and fifteen day scholars. There was a 
weekly celebration of the Holy Communion, 
and a surpliced choir, at the chapel. 

From the first, Dr. Breck had been ambi- 



152 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

tious to found a Church school for girls, in 
connection with a missionary foundation. At 
length, in 1871, he was successful, and S. Mary's- 
of-the-Pacific was opened. 

In this year, 1871, Dr. Breck was elected a 
deputy to General Convention from the Diocese 
of California. He was also cordially invited by 
Dr. Cole to preach at Nashotah, at the celebra- 
tion of the thirtieth anniversary of the mission. 
Dr. Cole was Dr. Breck's successor as president 
of Nashotah, and had proved himself eminently 
worthy of the trust reposed in him. 

In order to accept these appointments, there- 
fore, Dr. Breck started for the East, visiting his 
former work at Faribault, and then proceeding 
to Milwaukee. Here, however, he was taken 
ill, and was cared for by his former pupil, the 
Rev. Dr. Keene, at S. John's Rectory. He was 
too ill to be at Nashotah on S. Michael and All 
Angels' Day, the day of his appointment, so his 
sermon, or address, was read by another. He 
remained some time in Milwaukee, and then 
went on to the East, but too late for General 
Convention. Early the next year, 1872, Dr. 
Breck was again in California. 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 153 

His remaining years were spent in his work 
in California, in which he was always faithful. 
The end came suddenly, in 1876. His last ser- 
mon, preached on Quinquagesima Sunday, was 
on the Preparation made by Christ for His 
death. He fainted one afternoon soon after, 
while saying Evening Prayer in the school 
chapel. He did not rally as hoped, and on the 
Third Sunday in Lent, he was unable to receive 
the Blessed Sacrament, which Bishop Wing- 
field, who had been consecrated Missionary 
Bishop of Northern California, was ready to 
give him. His viaticum was received on the 
Feast of the Annunciation, March 25th. A week 
later, he breathed his last. 

He was buried at Benicia ; the venerable 
Bishop Kip, assisted by Bishop Wingfield, read- 
ing the service, and celebrating the Holy Com- 
munion. 

If one could imagine Bishop Chase and Dr. 
Muhlenberg blended into one, with the Church- 
manship and fervor of Bishop Hobart added, 
he would have a man somewhat like Dr. Breck. 
Earnest, straightforward, anxious for the hard 
instead of the easy work, for the work of sow- 



154 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

ing instead of reaping, he was the image of 
Bishop Chase. Devout in worship, anxious to 
show forth the beauty of holiness in the adorn- 
ments of the altar and the service, he was an 
apt pupil of his former teacher, Dr. Muhlen- 
berg. His conception of Churchmanship was 
truer and clearer than that of either of those. 
He labored earnestly to establish and to vindi- 
cate the catholicity of the Church of his birth. 
The Anglican communion was not ripe for 
religious communities of men, when Nashotah 
was founded. Dr. Breck was a great deal be- 
hind, or a great deal ahead, of his age, in sup- 
posing that a modernized, Anglican monastery 
could be founded in Wisconsin territory at that 
time. A man of intense — almost ascetic — fervor, 
he had thrown all his faculties into the devel- 
opment of his "system.'' That it would not 
succeed was as certain as was his intensity 
in working for it. A religious order requires 
absolute conformity to its threefold rule of pov- 
erty, chastity and obedience. The vow was 
not taken by the Nashotah missioners, and 
therefore the collapse of the system was in- 
evitable. Nor was the second attempt in Min- 



JAMES LLOYD BRECK. 155 

nesota more favorable. Indeed, Dr. Breck's 
marriage shows that he himself had given up 
all hope for its success. 

But if he failed in the foundation of a new 
order, which seems to have been Dr. Breck's 
first ambition, he was yet eminently successful 
in laying the foundations in the West, of the 
educational and missionary institutions which 
he was instrumental in building. The influ- 
ence of Nashotah on the American Church 
would be an interesting topic did time and 
space warrant its consideration. In Minnesota, 
again, and in California, the associate mission 
idea ripened into much fruit. Dr. Breck's work 
was pre-eminently that of a founder. He was 
neither the first, nor the last, but he was one of 
the greatest of those pioneers who, under Grod, 
made the Western wilderness to blossom as a 
rose. 

Nor may we forget the valuable work of his 
colleagues and successors in this development. 
The learning and scholarship of Dr. Adams, 
and the eminent clearheadedness of Dr. Cole, 
were, no less than the fervor of Dr. Breck, 
necessary factors in the making of Nashotah. 



156 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Men sometimes succeed, in places where their 
self-conceived plans fail. Not every structure 
is built according to the plans of its founders. 
Columbus sailed from Spain to find the Indies, 
and he became forever famous as the discoverer 
of America. Colonial patriots, in 1775, pro- 
tested against an act of British taxation, and 
they became the founders of a new nation. 
Lincoln asserted the integrity of the American 
Constitution, and he became the emancipator 
of four millions of slaves. Bishop Chase's work 
at Gambier, Bishop Doane's work in New Jer- 
sey, Dr. DeKoven's work in General Convention, 
were all examples of ultimate success on a 
broader scale, from immediate failures. Dr. 
Breck's experience was the same. What does 
it all prove, but that a Higher Power uses the 
work of men's hands, fashioning not according 
to men's plans, but according to a plan that 
looks, not necessarily to the realization of each 
conception of the workman, but to a vast, eter- 
nal, glorious purpose, even the buildiug of the 
heavenly Jerusalem, after the divine pattern I 




JAMES DeKOYEN. 



[From a Photograph.] 



<X.) JAMES DeKOVEN 

WARDEN OF RACINE COLLEGE. 

T F one should ask who was the greatest 
product of the American Church during 
the century and more of' its existence, the 
answer of one informed would almost cer- 
tainly be, James DeKoven. 

He was born in Middletown, Connecticut, 
on the 19th day of September, 1831. He grad- 
uated at Columbia College, New York, in 1851, 
and at the General Theological Seminary in 
1854. He was a classmate in the seminary, of 
Bishops Seymour, Brown and Knight ; of Dr. 
Hodges, of Baltimore ; Dr. Stevens Parker, his 
own successor at Racine ; Dr. Lance, afterward 
of Wisconsin ; and Dr. Richey, professor at the 
General Theological Seminary. He was or- 
dained to the diaconate by the present Bishop 
of Connecticut (Williams), soon after his grad- 
uation, and came West at once to become tutor 



158 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

of Ecclesiastical History at Nashotah, and rec- 
tor of the little church of S. John Chrysostom, 
Delafield, Wisconsin. So early as that, his di- 
aconate, he declined a call to Brooklyn and 
another to a beautiful parish on the Hudson, 
in order to take up work in Wisconsin. 

Soon after he began at Nashotah Seminary,, 
of which Dr. Cole, the successor of Breck, was 
president, Mr. DeKoven established a prepara- 
tory school at Delafield, called S. John's Hall, 
which was intended as a feeder to Nashotah. 
After his first year, he was advanced to the 
priesthood by Bishop Kemper, at Delafield, on 
September 23d, 1855. 

Racine College, at Racine, as far south of 
Milwaukee as Nashotah is west of it, had been 
established in 1852, as a Church college and 
grammar school, and was under the charge 
of the Rev. Roswell Park, D. D. Dr. Cole, of 
Nashotah, had been largely instrumental in 
its foundation. The institution had been fairly 
successful in its early years, until the financial 
crisis of 1857-58 almost wrecked it. In 1859, 
DeKoven was called to the wardenship, and S. 
John's Hall was merged into the preparatory 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 159 

department of Racine College. Dr. Park, the 
founder, retained his connection with the school 
as chancellor, but retired from administration. 
Dr. DeKoven assumed the full responsibility. 

James DeKoven was just twenty-eight years 
of age, and four years a priest, when he became 
the head of Racine College. Yet even so early 
as this, his genius and fame gave the college a 
wide reputation. Notwithstanding that civil 
war was raging and that all the colleges in the 
country were suffering from a consequent 
dearth of students, and that the college had no 
endowment whatever, Racine steadily advanced. 
It was chiefly as preparatory to the theological 
seminary at Nashotah, that the course was at 
first directed. But Dr. DeKoven was ambitious 
to make Racine what he afterward described it, 
" the Church University of the West and North- 
west." In 1865, the statement of theological 
preparation disappears from the catalogues, 
and, though for a number of years afterward, 
the greater number of students passed through 
Nashotah and received ordination, the number 
of students who did not, steadily increased. 

The immediate connection of the college 



160 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

with the Diocese of Wisconsin as a diocesan 
institution, was changed in 1868, and Racine 
became a general institution, under the charge 
of Bishops and others, from several adjoining 
States. The university scheme was developed 
in 1875, when the college was more distinctly 
separated from the grammar school, and new 
collegiate departments were established. But 
it must be admitted, that the original intention 
of Racine College, and the plan in placing Dr. 
DeKoven at the head, was rather to make 
Racine preparatory to Nashotah, than to form 
an independent university. 

The personal influence of the Warden on 
the students, is perhaps unparalleled in any 
college. Said the Rev. Dr. Locke of him, in a 
memorial sermon: 

" He had no trouble in gaining any young man's 
confidence, for he inspired immediately the feeling that 
such confidence would be given to a true man, with a 
loving heart actuated only by the purest motives, and 
with the sincerest desire to aid and strengthen the 
young and forming nature. He sought this confidence, 
for he thought it the basis of all influence ; and he has 
sometimes been faulted for it, and ugly things about 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 161 

i confessionals ' were put out in the newspapers. But 
as a father I thank him for the interest he took in my 
boy's spiritual nature, and hundreds of fathers will do 
the same. When I think how little my instructors 
knew or cared about the struggles of my heart, and the 
character of my temptations, I thank God that this man 
did so greatly care for those who fell under his charge." * 

Nor was his interest in them confined to 
their souls. He was probably the first college 
president to make provision among the stu- 
dents for billiard and card playing, thus re- 
moving from them temptation to those amuse- 
ments in questionable places. He had also a 
very happy gift of story-telling, and the book 
"Dorchester Polytechnic Academy" was first 
told to " his boys " as a continued story. 

When Dr. DeKoven became widely known 
as a champion of what was vulgarly called 
" Ritualism," the services at the college chapel 
were much misrepresented. The service was 
always reverent, but at no time was the ritual 
ornate or unusual. Every detail of the service 
received the consent of the Board of Trustees, 
many of whom were not wholly in sympathy 
with Dr. DeKoven's theological convictions. 



* Church Eclectic, May, J 879. 



162 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

At the height of its prosperity, during Dr. 
DeKoven's administration, the college com- 
prised seventy students, and the grammar 
school about 150. The college itself never 
paid expenses, but the deficit was paid from 
the profits of the grammar school. After 
DeKoven's death, the attendance of students 
in both departments fell off, and finally it 
became necessary to close the collegiate de- 
partment entirely. How unfortunate it is 
that this, DeKoven's special work, should come 
to naught, may appear when the balance of 
this chapter has shown what manner of man 
he was. Racine still exists and is again on the 
upward path, but the collegiate department is 
still under suspension (1892). 

The General Convention of 1868 was the 
first to which Dr. DeKoven was a deputy. 
This he attended, representing the Diocese of 
Wisconsin, together with the Rev. Dr. Adams, 
the Rev. Dr. Beers, and the Rev. F. R. Haff, as 
clerical deputies. Dr. DeKoven was appointed 
chairman of the Committee on Christian Edu- 
cation, and as such endeavored to secure the 
passage of a series of resolutions favoring the 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 168 

opening of grammar schools in all cities and 
towns. Such resolutions passed the lower 
House, but the House of Bishops concurred only 
in a general recommendation of "the establish- 
ment of Christian schools in every parish where 
it may be practicable. " 

"Ritualism" was the topic of greatest inter- 
est coming before the convention. For two or 
three years before, the subject had been agitat- 
ing the Church. The publication of Bishop 
Hopkins' " Law of Ritualism,"* had, as we have 
seen, called forth much opposition as well as 
many indorsements. 

Just what was meant by " Ritualism," as the 
term was used by its opponents, was never dis- 
tinctly defined. The influence of the Oxford 
Movement in the Church of England had per- 
meated the whole Church, and was now bear- 
ing fruit in a deeper spirituality and a closer 
approach to the devotional standards of the 
primitive Church. Manuals for the altar were 
more widely distributed, the Blessed Sacrament 
was more highly venerated, and reverence for 
holy things, and particularly for the ornaments 

* See pages 107-8. 



164 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

of the altar, was more observed. With these 
improvements, came of necessity a desire to 
enrich the services of the Church more plenti- 
fully, and to make the "beauty of holiness" 
apparent to all worshippers. Thus, in many 
churches, old slipshod methods gave way to 
better and more reverent usages. Churches 
were better adorned, the ecclesiastical colors 
were observed, priestly vestments received 
more care, flowers and lights beautified the 
altar. 

But while these improvements were thor- 
oughly in accord with the early traditions of 
the Church, they were strenuously opposed by 
some who forgot that the Reformation of the 
English Church, instead of establishing a new 
religion, was a return to customs formally pre- 
vailing in days of greater purity in religion. 
A dignified ritual always characterized the ser- 
vices of the early Church. 80, it was rightfully 
urged, should it be in the Church in America 
to-day. 

Dr. DeKoven was an earnest advocate of a 
return to the Catholic principle of beautifying 
worship. Therefore, though in General Con- 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 165 

vention for the first time in 1868, he was very 
active in opposition to every measure that 
would prohibit such a return. 

The three years that followed were years of 
violent controversy in the Church, on this sub- 
ject. When the General Convention of 1871 
met, in Baltimore, excitement was at a fever 
heat. Dr. DeKoven was now the acknowledged 
leader of those commonly called "Ritualists" — 
those, that is, who lay special stress on the 
Catholicity of the Church. A committee of 
Bishops, of whom the Bishop of Delaware (Lee) 
was chairman, submitted an elaborate report 
recommending the prohibition, by canon, of a 
considerable number of ritual acts, etc. The 
report was referred to a joint committee of 
both houses, of which the Bishop of Maryland 
(Whittingham) was chairman. Their report 
was awaited with great eagerness. At length 
the report was made, embodying a proposed 
canon which declared that " the provisions for 
Ritual in this Church are," the Book of Common 
Prayer, the "Canons of the Church of England 
agreed upon in 1603, and in use in the American 
Provinces and States before the year 1789, and 



166 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

not subsequently altered or repealed," and the 
canonical or other legislation of the American 
Church. The canon seemed fair. But at once 
question arose as to what were the Canons of 
1603 ; and especially, what parts were "in use" 
in the American Provinces ; and what it meant 
to be " in use." Dr. DeKoven spoke on the sub- 
ject but once. He first alluded to the different 
constructions which would certainly be placed 
upon the words " in use." Again he convulsed 
the house by reading from one of the " Canons 
of 1603 " a long description of what should be 
the apparel of a clergyman, including minute 
directions concerning long buttons, light-col- 
ored stockings, and nightcaps ! After thus 
ridiculing the proposition, be became serious, 
and said: 

" Mr. President, I believe that this Church of ours is 
going to wake up to another question than those that 
are agitating us now, and is waking up to it — the ques- 
tion of how it shall do its work in this land. And now 
I beg leave to ask this House whether this is a day and 
a time for us to be legislating about ceremonies, legis- 
lating against reverence, legislating against men who claim 
and believe that they are seeking the Lord Jesus Christ ? 
Is it too much reverence that is the curse of this land ? 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 167 

Is it too much ceremony ? Is it too great devotion ? Go 
where you will, Mr. President, and the congregations, so 
far from being too reverent, are very wretchedly and 
dreadfully irreverent, and irreverent on principle ; that is 
to say, they have paid choirs to tickle their ears, and to 
sing the service of Almighty God for them. They do 
not kneel in church ; they have not any incense. 
But I will tell you what you will find — women filling 
themselves with incense, so that there is an odor going 
up through the church, very sweet to smell, not for the 
honor and glory of Almighty God, but for the honor 
and glory of men and women !" * 

DeKoven accomplished his purpose. 

The canon which had passed the House of 
Bishops while it was being considered in the 
lower House, failed in the House of Deputies 
on a final vote. But the battle was not yet over. 

The day before the close of the session, the 
friends of the "advanced" movement in the 
Church were surprised at a proposed canon 
passed by the House of Bishops, and sent to the 
House of Deputies, which was vastly more dan- 
gerous than that which had been defeated be- 
fore. It was one to forbid those reverential 



* Debates in General Convention, 1871. 



168 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

acts in the celebration of the Holy Communion 
which imply a belief in the Real Presence of 
our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. The proposed 
canon was not even introduced in the House 
of Bishops until the day before final adjourn- 
ment, when it was presented by the Bishop of 
Florida (Young). It was evidently a surprise 
to the Bishops. The Bishop of Alabama (Wil- 
mer) attempted to have the matter laid over 
until another convention, but without avail. 
The proposition was reported from the commit- 
tee later on the same day, and passed the House 
of Bishops by a vote of 22 to 15. An attempt 
to add to it a condemnation of altar lights and 
incense, made by the Bishop of Nebraska (Clark- 
son), was not successful. 

When the proposed canon was received in 
the House of Deputies, many had already gone 
home. Those still remaining were taken greatly 
by surprise. Dr. DeKoven protested against its 
consideration in such a light house, but without 
avail. The question had been " sprung " on the 
House, and must be met at once. 

Dr. DeKoven was equal to the emergency. 
He first protested against the manifest unfair- 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 169 

ness of considering the matter so late in the 
session. Then, after his time had been extend- 
ed (each deputy was only entitled to speak ten 
minutes under the rules) by a vote of 104 to 61, 
Dr. DeKoven answered the doctrinal objections. 
He showed that the custom of Eucharistic Ado- 
ration (worship of our Lord present in the Sac- 
rament) had prevailed in the Church long before 
the doctrine of Transubstantiation had ever 
been held. He showed the difference between 
the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and 
the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation. He 
said plainly : 

" I believe in the Real, Actual Presence of our Lord, 
under the form of bread and wine, upon the altars of 
our churches. I myself adore, and would, if it were 
necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, Christ 
present in the elements under the form of bread and 
wine."* 

These words had been expressly ruled by the 
highest ecclesiastical court in England to be 
not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of 
England. 

Dr. DeKoven proceeded to distinguish be- 



*Debates in General Convention, 1871, 



170 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

tween Transubstantiation and the Real Pres- 
ence. Speaking of the reverential acts of the 
faithful in the Holy Eucharist, he said : 

"They symbolize the Real, Spiritual Presence of 
Christ. The eloquent deputy from Massachusetts (Dr. 
A. Vinton) said that if he believed there was a material 
Presence of Christ upon our altars, there was no posi- 
tion too humble for him to occupy. If I believe in a 
spiritual Presence, is there any position too humble for 
me to occupy ? Am I to be less humble in a spiritual 
Presence than he would be in a material Presence ? 
Believe it, the difference between us is only this, that 
God gives to us who believe in the Spiritual Presence 
more faith. And if I prostrate myself — I do not do it— 
but were I to prostrate myself before the altar, it would 
only be because I see, hidden behind all material forms, 
Him, my own Saviour, Whom I believe in, and love, 
and adore. And if I place upon head, upon lip, and 
upon breast, the sign of the Cross, it is only to remind 
me of Him and His crucifixion. And if I place upon 
the altar the lights that blaze and glow, it is only 
because they typify here on earth the seven lamps of 
fire which burn before the throne of God, which no 
Canons and no General Conventions can ever put out ; 
for there, Mr. President, there, is the worship of Heaven ! 
Strip this Church, if you will, of its glorious symbols ; 
I will tell you what it will remain. In that awful fire 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 171 

at Chicago * the other day, the papers told us of one 
poor soul who, all blackened and scarred, was still found 
in the attitude of prayer. Blacken and scar this Church, 
if you will ; still, with outstretched hands upreaching, 
she will implore Him Who lives amidst the eternal 
worship of Heaven, where angels bear the vials full of 
odors, which are the prayers of saints ! t 

His peroration was truly grand : 

" This question before us, believe me, is not a question 
of Ritualism or anti-Ritualism, but a question of the 
grand forward march and movement of the Church of 
God, which is meant to be, not a Church for to-day, but 
a Church forever — the American Catholic Church. Ah ! 
as I see the triumphal march and swing with which 
I believe that Church will do her work in this country, 
my heart beats with a quicker throb, and the giddy blood 
goes coursing through my veins. I see her marching 
on across those broad, wide lands of the West, beyond, 
those prairies of Iowa, beyond the plains of Nebraska,, 
beyond the Sierra Nevada, until she stretches out her 
hands to the far-off East, where the world is waiting for 
conversion. And this Church of ours is to stretch out 
her hands on this side and on that, not in any narrow 
way. How our hearts thrilled when the Bishop of 



*This refers to the great Chicago fire which occurred 
while the General Convention was in session. 

+ Debates in General Convention, 1871. 



172 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Lichfield spoke of the Anglo-Saxon race as destined to 
be the race which would give peace to the world ! 
Why may not this Church of ours give peace to the 
divided branches of Christ's Church? — on this side 
stretching out her hands to the Protestant bodies, say- 
ing to them, ' We, too, are Protestant in certain senses ; 
we disbelieve in the supremacy of the Pope ; we disbe- 
lieve in his infallibility ; we disbelieve in the shutting 
up of Scripture in a tongue not understanded of the 
people ; we believe in a Liturgy that can be read and 
known of all men ; we do not believe in a compulsory 
celibacy ; we do not believe in enforced confession ; we 
only believe in the Grand Catholic doctrines.' And 
then, on the other hand, to say to people : ' The cere- 
monies of the broad world, the ceremonies that typify 
Christ, the ceremonies that tell of Him, the ceremonies 
that teach me to believe, not in any material Presence, 
but in Him Whom by faith I see : these, these shall be 
the ceremonies of our branch of the Catholic Church of 
Christ." 

The battle was fought. The House of Dep- 
uties refused to concur with the House of Bish- 
ops. The danger was over. 

Dr. DeKoven was now the central figure in 
the American Church. No name more fre- 
quently appeared in the Church papers ; no one 
received equal attention. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 173 

It was not strange, therefore, that when 
there was a vacancy in the episcopate in Mas- 
sachusetts in 1873, caused by the death of 
Bishop Eastburn and, subsequently, by the dec- 
lination of the Rev. Benjamin I. Haight, D. D., 
LL. D., of Trinity Church, New York, who was 
elected in his place, Dr. DeKoven was one im- 
mediately thought of. He was accordingly nom- 
inated in the convention by the Rev. Alexander 
Burgess, D. D., afterward Bishop of Quincy,and 
received a liberal support. But though the 
number of votes given him was nearly a 
majority, a few were lacking and DeKoven was 
defeated, the Rev. B. H. Paddock, D. D., being 
elected. 

The close vote showed, however, how strong 
Dr. DeKoven's supporters were, and it may be 
believed, opened the eyes of his opponents who 
had belittled the " advanced " movement. 

The crisis of the whole of DeKoven's history 
now came, and the eyes of the whole Church 
were turned toward Wisconsin. 

On the 7th of December, 1873, Bishop Armi- 
tage passed to his rest, in the prime of his 
manhood, when apparently he was at the period 



174 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

of his greatest usefulness. A special council 
to elect a successor, was called to meet at the 
Cathedral in Milwaukee (the purchase of which 
had been one of Bishop Armitage's last and 
most notable acts) in February. The prelimi- 
nary campaign was both bitter and vigorous. 
It was characterized by a series of letters to 
the daily papers, for and against the candidacy 
of Dr. DeKoven. That the chiefest of these 
were anonymous, was discreditable to both 
sides. None of them were from the pen of 
DeKoven. The Church papers in the East, too, 
took an active part in the contest. 

The campaign was opened by the Chicago 
Times with a series of interviews with a num- 
ber of clergy in the diocese, including Dr. De- 
Koven. The latter gave it as his opinion that 
the contest would be rather between men of 
the same theological stripe, than between those 
of opposing principles. A few days later, a 
Milwaukee paper contained a long anonymous 
letter in criticism of Dr. DeKoven's several 
answers to his interviewer, charging DeKoven 
with various extreme practices and views, mis- 
representing him (as was claimed) in a number 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 175 

of particulars, and appealing to the popular 
prejudice against Rome to defeat him as a 
u Romanizer." The paper was afterward issued 
in pamphlet form over the signatures of six 
clergymen, with the title " Principles, not Men " 
prefixed. 

As the day of the council drew near, excite- 
ment reached a high pitch, and column after 
column of the daily papers was given up to 
discussions of the coming election. 

On the night before the council met, a ser- 
vice in commemoration of the late Bishop Arm- 
itage, was held by appointment at the Cathe- 
dral, which was draped in black, and Dr. De- 
Koven preached the memorial sermon. It was 
a most remarkable discourse. As it is contained 
in the sole volume of Dr. DeKoven's published 
sermons, no extracts need be given here.* 

Next day, Thursday, February 12th, the coun- 
cil met at the Cathedral. It was the centre of 
interest for the whole community. Secular 
papers of New York, Boston and Chicago had 
special correspondents present to wire them 
full particulars of the proceedings. Never be- 



* DeKoven's Sermons, pages 225-250. 



176 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

fore or since had a diocesan Church convention 
in America ever attracted such widespread 
attention. The opening service occupied the 
greater portion of the morning, and the after- 
noon was spent in wrangling over the roll of 
parishes entitled to vote. This, it might be 
remarked here, is a question which invariably 
causes confusion at an episcopal election, and 
which ought to be definitely settled by legisla- 
tion in each diocese. 

In the evening came the formal nominations. 
The first name presented was that of the Rev. 
Lewis A. Kemper, D. D., professor at Nashotah, 
and son of Wisconsin's first Bishop. Dr. Kemper 
replied by withdrawing his name, and present- 
ing that of the Rev. Eugene A. Hoffman, D. D., 
rector of S. Mark's Church, Philadelphia. The 
nomination was seconded by the Rev. W. P. 
TenBroeck, rector of La Crosse. 

Then followed a long and exceedingly unfor- 
tunate debate upon the availability and merits 
of Dr. Hoffman, who was less widely known in 
the Church than he is to-day. The debates in 
full may be found in the secular papers of the 
next day. They are certainly lacking in many 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 177 

of the characteristics of a Christian convention, 
and an abstract of them would not be profitable 
here. At length, after a very disorderly session 
in the Cathedral itself, a recess was taken until 
next morning. 

The second day opened with undiminished 
interest. The chairman, the Rev. Dr. Ashley, 
made at the opening some timely remarks on 
the decorum proper to be observed in the de- 
liberations. The Rev. Dr. Everhart, chaplain 
of Kemper Hall, followed with an eloquent and 
calm address, presenting the name of the Rev. 
James DeKoven, D. D., to the council. The 
Rev. Dr. Falk, a professor at Racine College, 
seconded the nomination and replied to the 
anticipated objections to the gentleman, on the 
grounds of doctrine and "Ritualism." 

Then ensued a repetition of the disorderly 
scenes of the evening before. Excitement was 
at fever heat when the Rev. Robert N. Parke, 
one of the six signers of the document "Prin- 
ciples, not Men," publicly withdrew his signa- 
ture. The very full report of the proceedings 
in the Milwaukee Sentinel thus gives a por- 
tion of his remarks : 



178 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

; ' He (Mr. Parke) came here three years ago from a 
purer moral atmosphere than he found here. He was 
frank to say that he differed from Dr. DeKoven as to 
certain points. On certain other points in the docu- 
ment he did not know whether the Doctor holds the 
views implicated to Dr. DeKoven ; and after prayerful 
consideration he wished to stand before the convention 
and relieve himself of that part of the accusation made 
without his personal knowledge. He desired to make 
an humble apology." * 

Fain would we draw a pen over the records 
of the remainder of the morning. But words 
spoken on earth, by whomsoever said, are 
words recorded in Heaven for the weal or the 
woe of him who speaks them. He who takes 
up his pen to write history, must write with 
absolute impartiality, and neither add to, nor 
subtract from, the exact occurrences. 

The next speaker was the Rev. Edward B. 
Spalding, head master of the grammar school 
at Racine College. In the course of his re- 
marks, he produced and read statements in 
writing from four students at Nashotah, to the 
effect that they had themselves heard the 



* Sentinel, February 14, 1874. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 179 

author and one of the signers of the document 
" Principles, not Men " admit — 

" That it was an exaggeration intended to influence 
the laity against Dr. DeKoven — an article of political 
intrigue ; and that no such results would follow from 
the election of Dr. DeKoven as he had therein stated. 
Dr. E excused himself by saying that in news- 
papers such articles were lawful." * 

The next column of the published report is 
not desirable matter to be reproduced. But 
that exact justice may be done, the defense of 
the gentleman against whom the students' 
charges were made is here given : 

" After a certain document, which was subsequently 
signed in my name and the names of others, as pub- 
lished in a communication in the Milwaukee Sentinel, 
came to Nashotah, it was taken up as an anonymous 
communication at the table at which these gentlemen 
and I sat. It was treated facetiously, and bandied 
about until it accidentally came out that I wrote the 
thing. Those things that were stated facetiously have 
been put in here, that it was intended to have political 
effect, etc. It was commented upon as having political 
effect, perhaps by myself, and perhaps by them. I do 
not remember stating that it was for political effect. 



* Ibid. f 



180 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

The thing that was brought here, was a dinner-table 
conversation. It was charged at that dinner-table, 
before the authorship of it was avowed, that that arti- 
cle stated what was not true in this particular, that it 
did not state that the High-Church party believed in 
the doctrine of the Real Presence. In the course of 
the dinner-table talk it was stated this article conveyed 
an evil impression, because it did not assert on the 
part of the High-Church party, a doctrine of the Real 
Presence." * 

When the council came together, after the 
noon recess, the pending question was on lim- 
iting debate. An acrimonious discussion fol- 
lowed, in which gentlemen more and more 
appeared to forget the sanctity of the edifice in 
which they were gathered and of the work they 
had to do. The afternoon debate surpassed all 
that had preceded it, in disorder, malignity and 
discourtesy. Extracts could hardly be culled 
from it that would form proper reading for this 
place. 

At length Dr. DeKoven took the floor to 
make his long-looked-for defense, and silence 
fell over the house. 

* Ibid. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 181 

After stating the reluctance with which he 
stood before them, arraigned, as he was, before 
the whole Church, he commenced an examina- 
tion of the document "Principles, not Men." 
He criticised the opening clause as insincere : 
"The undersigned have seen an article in the 
Milwaukee papers," etc., when one of them 
had admitted the authorship of it. After a 
brief interruption, the Doctor proceeded to 
state his belief in the doctrine of the Real 
Presence, repeating and explaining at length 
his language used in the General Convention 
of 1871, and before quoted. He showed that 
the words used were those which had been de- 
clared lawful in England by the Court of Arches, 
in the Bennett case. 

" Now the question," said he, " is, is such a doctrine 
tolerated by the Church of England ? And here I must 
say a few words about the doctrine of the Eucharist. 
I cannot enter into that with any fullness. There are 
three questions which may be asked in regard to the 
Holy Eucharist : 

" I. What is present? 

" II. Where is it present ? 

" III. How is it present ? 



182 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

" To each one of these interrogatories, three answers 
may be given: First, How is it present ? The Roman 
Catholic answers, by Transubstantiation. The Luth- 
eran answers, by Consubstantiation. The Zwinglian 
answers, Figuratively. The Churchman denies the 
three, and when pressed to say how Christ is present, 
he answers, ' I cannot tell how ; it is a mystery, and 
I believe and adore.' " 

He declared an answer to the question, 
" Where is it (the Body and Blood of Christ) 
present ?" to be : 

"After consecration and before reception, in sacra- 
mental union with the consecrated elements. This is 
my own view ; I cannot say how it is present. I deny 
that it is by Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or 
any other device of human reason. As to what is pres- 
ent, I say it is the Body and Blood of Christ ; and as to 
where it is present, I assert that it is in sacramental 
union with the consecrated elements, to be the spiritual 
food of the faithful. 

" The view is expressed in a speech made by one of 
my accusers, the Rev. Dr. Egar, in the General Conven- 
tion of 1871 (p. 464 of Debates):— 

"******' How can gentlemen deny that 
there is a Real Presence if they have ever learned their 
Church catechism ? * * * * * * Now, when you 
define a Sacrament that is to consist of two parts, one of 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 183 

which is the Body and Blood, I do not see how you can 
eliminate from that the one part and leave the other part 
alone. I object, then, to the doctrinal basis on which 
this argument has been conducted. I say the gentlemen 
who have given the definition of a Ritualist which it is 
designed to put down, are going in the face of the cate- 
chism, and are going in the face of the whole of the 
doctrine of this Church. That is to say, so far as they 
have given us a definition of the thing as a tangible 
thing, they tell you that if you admit that doctrine, 
which the great majority of us here do admit, all these 
other things follow logically from it.' " 

After thus showing the identity of his belief 
on the Real Presence with that of Dr. Egar, 
his leading opponent, Dr. DeKoven proceeded 
to vindicate that doctrine by extensive quo- 
tations from the standard English divines. 
The doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration, or 
Worship of our Lord in the Sacrament, he 
showed to flow logically from the former belief, 
and strengthened his statement, as before, by 
copious extracts. He also quoted from the 
remarks of another of his opponents, the Rev. 
Dr. Adams, who, in the General Convention of 
1871, had said : 

" The doctrine which Dr. DeKoven holds, I believe, 
is the same as that of Dr. Pusey. It is identical, more 



184 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

or less, with the old doctrine of Consubstantiation. I 
do not wish the clergy and laity of this house to get 
scared and talk about a difficult question, and get into 
an excitement and imagine that Dr. DeKoven is coming 
here and speaking heresy. * * * * * My col- 
league (Dr. DeKoven) is not a heretic in any shape or 
form." 

Leaving the subject of the Eucharist, Dr. 
DeKoven continued : 

" Now, Mr. President, I have, as fully as the circum- 
stances admit of, stated the doctrine of the Eucharist 
which I hold. So far as this document has not misrep- 
resented it, I have no fault to find. I come now to its 
utter unfairness, as found in the following paragraph : 

" ' Still it may be argued, on behalf of Dr. DeKoven 
and the Ritualists, that this is merely a speculative opin- 
ion, especially as the Dr. explicitly disavows a belief in 
Transubstantiation. But, unfortunately, the practical 
results of this belief are identical with the practical re- 
sults of Transubstantiation, and the difference is merely 
speculative and nugatory as between his belief and that 
of the Church of Rome. For the acts of adoration ad- 
dressed to the Presence in the elements on the altar, are 
precisely those addressed by the members of the Church 
of Rome to the Host, and none other. This localization 
of the Presence, implies an arrangement of the service, 
with lights, vestments, prostrations, non-communicant 
adorations, a reserved Sacrament, processions of Corpus 
Christi, and all other incidents with which the attendants 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 185 

on Roman Catholic worship are familiar, and which are 
foreign to our own "use." It implies an offering of 
Christ by the priest for the living and the dead ; it im- 
plies, in every respect, what the Ritualists call it, the 
Mass, and not the Holy Communion.' [ l Principles, not 
Men.'l ****** 

" Fully to investigate the accusation and to explain 
its grievous wrong, allow me to arrange these various 
sorts of ritual in three divisions : 

" 1. ' Lights and vestments.' 

" 2. ' Incense and prostrations.' 

" 3. 'A reserved Sacrament' (for purposes of worship). 
* Processions of Corpus Christi.' 'All other incidents 
with which the attendants upon Roman Catholic wor- 
ship are familiar ;' including, I suppose, the Benedic- 
tion of the Blessed Sacrament, the forty hours' exposi- 
tion, etc., etc. 

" I classify them in this way to show the skill with 
which the paragraph is framed. Those under the third 
class alone are distinctly Roman. The Lutherans, who 
certainly are Protestant enough, have both lights and 
vestments. The Greek Church, and the Communions 
who have separated from it, the Nestorian and Jacobite 
Churches, have lights, vestments, incense and prostra- 
tions. The Lutheran Church holds the doctrine known 
as Consubstantiation. The Greek Church holds the 
Catholic faith of all ages as to the Eucharist. Accused 
as she is sometimes of holding Transubstantiation, it can 



186 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

only be said of her that she uses the term l metousiosis,* 
but denies that it is to be taken to define the manner in 
which the bread and wine are changed into the Body 
and Blood of our Lord. [Neale's Int. to Hist, of the 
Holy E. Ch., p. 1173, note.] One would reasonably 
argue, therefore, that these four things were not necessarily 
the ritual of Transubstantiation. There is proof, how- 
ever, on the matter which to a member of the Anglican 
Communion is absolutely unanswerable. 

"The doctrine of Transubstantiation was imposed 
upon the Western Church by the Fourth Lateran Coun- 
cil, A. D. 1215. The great Anglican Theologians prove 
most conclusively that this doctrine was a new one and 
cannot be proved by Scripture or the Fathers. Lights, 
incense and vestments date back at least to the fifth 
century, and probably to a far earlier period. I take 
the latest date. The Jacobite and Nestorian Commun- 
ions separated from the Eastern Church in that century, 
and probably have not since changed their usages. Both 
the orthodox Communions and these heretical bodies 
had them then, and retain them still. The use of them 
is seven hundred years and more older than Transub- 
stantiation. Now mark the argument. If they be nec- 
essarily the ritual of Transubstantiation, all the argu- 
ments of our theologians go for nothing, and the doctrine, 
instead of being a corruption of the Middle Ages, is at 
least as old as the age of the undisputed General Coun- 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 187 

cils. So do these gentlemen, in their eager zeal, play 
into the hands of Rome. 

" Holding this view, namely, that they are not nec- 
essarily the ritual of Transubstantiation, but simply the 
ritual of the Real Presence, I have been the pastor of a 
college chapel. In such a service large liberties have 
always been allowed. The Rev. Dr. Kemper might have 
taken in the savour of incense, and I know not what 
besides, in his boyhood at Dr. Muhlenberg's famous 
school at College Point. Nay, the chapel of Racine Col- 
lege has never been consecrated. It has no legal posi- 
tion as a church. It is nothing more than a private 
room. Subject always to the authority of the trustees, 
so far as ecclesiastical authority was concerned, I might, 
have had the 'use of Sarum ' had I desired to do so. 

" Now, mark me, Mr. President, when I say that with 
all this, the ritual at Racine does not materially differ, as 
these gentlemen well know, from that which prevails at. 
Nashotah Chapel, which is a parish church; and is not so- 
advanced in its character as the ritual in Trinity Church 
New York, and its chapels. 

"The Rev. Mr. Wilkinson,* from some remark of 
mine, has insinuated to this body that this moderation 
has been due to policy or timidity. Let me state to 
what principles of action it has been due : 



*The Rev. John Wilkinson, rector of Grace Church, Mad- 
ison, one of the signers of " Principles, not Men." 



188 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

" 1. While I hold that every rubric of the Prayer 
Book must be obeyed, I do not believe the Prayer Book 
to be a book of full ritual directions. 

" 2. I do not believe that by adding to the Prayer 
Book some vague notion of usage, the law of the Church 
on the subject of ritual is to be found. 

" 3. I do not think that the Church has a distinct 
and clear law of ritual. 

" 4. I hope the day may come when we can approach 
the question of what that law must be, in a spirit of 
charity ; and when we do, I hope we shall find room for 
both lofty ceremonial and for simple services. 

u 5. Meanwhile individual action, and sometimes 
irregular action, has preceded, as it always does, corpo- 
rate action. 

" I, myself, in adopting any ornament or ceremony, 
have been governed by five distinct practical ideas : 

"1. That it should not contradict any doctrine of 
the Church. 

" 2. That it should have common sense in its favour. 

" 3. That it should not provoke vehement contro- 
versy among those for whose benefit it was intended. 

"4. That it should not be unreal, but for the good 
of souls. 

"5. That it should not be against the command of 
the Bishop. 

" Inasmuch, therefore, as my principles do not neces- 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 189 

sarily involve any one of the ceremonies which are dis- 
tinctly and exclusively Roman, inasmuch as with the 
exception of lights on the altar at early celebrations, 
and on some great festivals at a late one, I have never 
practised any one of the three classes of ceremonies 
enumerated, I charge my brethren with grave mis- 
representation in this paragraph.* 

Dr. DeKoven then spoke upon " Confession," 
quoting extensively, as before, from the Fathers, 
particularly those of the English Church. He 
referred to the charges against him, as follows: 

"All this does not need to be proved to any theolo- 
gian. The six Presbyterst are as well aware of it as I 
am, but the laity whom they have addressed are not. 
They have been scared with a word. This has been the 
first injustice. A graver wrong is to be found in the 
three following passages of ' Principles, not Men ' : 

" 1. That I teach 'Auricular confession as having 
a sacramental character, and therefore useful for all 
Christians as an ordinary means of the forgiveness of sins. 1 

"2. That 'The members of the Church are to be 
persuaded, as an ordinary and frequent thing, to come 



*A white linen alb and chasuble are used at the celebration 
of the Lord's Supper in the chapel of Racine College. [This 
was a foot-note in the Theological Defense.] 

fThe signers of the pamphlet, " Principles, not Men." 



190 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

to auricular confession and to put their consciences in 
u holy obedience " under the priest's " direction." ' 

"3. 'If Dr. DeKoven is made Bishop of Wiscon- 
sin, the necessary tendency of his principles and asso- 
ciations will be to require an arrangement of the Episco- 
pal Cathedral identical with that of Bishop Henni's* 
Cathedral ; the altar must be decorated with lights ; the 
priest must be dressed in vestments, the people must 
prostrate themselves at the elevation of the Host, the 
confessional boxes must line the walls, the people will 
not know whether they are in one or the other,' etc. 

" If the last paragraph be so overstrained that it 
naturally produces laughter, none the less do the three 
passages make a charge against me of utter disloyalty 
and unfaithfulness to the Church. I have quoted the 
views and practices of a long line of divines of the 
Church of England. Any controversialist, by examin- 
ing the writings of some of them, notably of Hooker, 
Ussher and Jeremy Taylor, can bring forward the strong- 
est language against Confession. And why ? Because 
the Church of England has a distinct doctrine on the 
subject of confession, which clearly distinguishes it from 
that of Rome. When they advocate confession, they 
mean the confession their own Church permits, ap- 
proves and advises. When they speak against confes- 



* Bishop Henai was the Roman Bishop of Milwaukee. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 191 

sion, they mean the system which the Reformation 
reformed. 

" There are five chief points in which the Church of 
England differs from that of Rome : 

"DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROME AND ENGLAND ON 
CONFESSION. 

" 1. Rome believes that imperfect sorrow or attrition 
oecomes contrition or perfect sorrow by means of con- 
fession. 

"The Church of England denies this as a necessary 
consequence ; and so do I. 

" 2. Rome teaches that there are two kinds of pun- 
ishment due to sin, eternal and temporal. It sub- 
divides the latter into the punishments to be borne in 
this life, and those in purgatory. Absolutions remit 
the former ; the latter are taken away by Penances. 
Hence sprang up the necessity of ' numbering sins,' and 
the whole theory of indulgences. 

" The Church of England denies this, and so do I, 
regarding with her, acts of penance as useful and de- 
sirable only as a means of deepening repentance, and 
as a test of its genuineness. 

" 3. The Church of Rome permits, at least, the addi- 
tion of direction to confession, namely, the laying bare 
of heart and motives, that the priest may guide the life. 

" Believing in the desirability of confession, accept- 
ing, too, the principle of such necessary guidance as 



192 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

scrupulous persons may require, or extraordinary con- 
tingencies demand, I abhor the very notion of ' direction.* 

" 4. The Church of Rome enforces confession ; the 
Church of England makes it voluntary, and so do I. 

" 5. And most important, the Church of Rome re- 
gards confession as necessary to the forgiveness of sins and 
therefore enforces it. 

"The Church of England, on the other hand, re- 
gards the voluntariness of confession as a necessary 
element in its usefulness, because, though often neces- 
sary to penitence and relief of the burdened soul, it i& 
not necessary to the forgiveness of sins; and as the Church 
teaches, so do I. 

" Do I need say more upon this subject ? Let me ask 
you to consider that the only proof which has been 
brought forward on this floor of these unfair state- 
ments, is an accusation that in 1870, or thereabouts, I 
heard certain confessions at Nashotah — the object being 
to show that I intruded into the cure of souls, and 
usurped a jurisdiction to which I had no right. 

" Mr. President, to accuse me of wrong towards 
Nashotah, is like ' seething a kid in its mother's milk/ 
I came to this diocese, from home and friends, a newly 
ordained Deacon, drawn hither by the saintly story of 
Nashotah House. For five years I was a tutor there,, 
and reorganized the Preparatory Department, which was 
a very necessary part of the work of the Seminary. In 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 193- 

1859, I moved to Racine College, which for about ten 
years after, continued to be the Preparatory Department 
of Nashotah. 

"I was bound to Nashotah by every tie. I had 
given it love, labour and self-denial. The youths to 
whom I had been father, friend and pastor, and whom 
I loved as my own soul, and they me, were there as can- 
didates. Was it surprising that now and then one 
whom I had trained and guided should look to me for 
spiritual help? In the course of years there came one 
or two others, who were recommended to me by their 
own pastors, and at last two who perhaps could not be 
thus classified. The Rev. Dr. Cole, then and now pres- 
ident and pastor of Nashotah, has informed you on this 
floor, that whatever I did, I did with his knowledge, consent 
and approval, and that I did no wrong. Do I need 
further justification ?" 

These were Dr. DeKoven's closing remarks: 

" But, in conclusion, let me ask, Mr. President, are 
these things after all the dangers of the Church of Wis- 
consin ? Do we need to warn our people against Con- 
fession, Eucharistical Adoration, and too much rever- 
ence? Is Milwaukee full of penitents? Are the rural 
districts of Wisconsin inclined to superstition ? Must 
I say that even I, who am supposed to embody all this 
idea of overmuch religion — outside of my own College, 
and some few directly or indirectly connected with it. 



194 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

as before mentioned — have never heard the confession 
of a lay man or a lay woman in the whole Diocese of Wis- 
consin ? Nay, under whatever circumstances I have been 
thrown in a ministry of nearly 20 years, outside of the 
same limits, I have not heard the confessions of more 
than twenty persons, clerical and lay, in this whole land. 
The average of one a year may be surely sufficiently 
exceptional. 

" My brethren, I see before me the mighty work the 
Church of God might do. I hear the cries of pain and 
anguish that go up to Heaven. This terrible record of 
crime and misery, this story of lost and ruined souls 
we do not save, rends my heart. I know that the chief 
dangers of the day do not lie in too many confessions, 
or overwrought devotion, or too high an appreciation 
of the Sacraments of the Church. They are rather to 
be found in unbelief and sin, in corruption and dis- 
honour, in covetousness, lust and irreverence, in inac- 
tion, and stagnation, and quaking timidity, and ye all 
know it ! 

" But from such thoughts as these, from all that has 
passed in these sad days, from a bitterness I have not 
deserved, nay, even from these warm hearts whose 
human sympathy has sustained me in this, my time of 
trial, I turn myself away. I lift my heart to Him on 
Whose Almighty Arm I lean, and in Whose mighty 
power even my weakness is strong, and louder than the 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 195 

din of angry words, nay, because of the prayers that so 
many have lovingly prayed, I hear the gracious promise: 

" ' Commit thy way unto the Lord, and He will bring 
it to pass.' 

" ' He will make thy righteousness as clear as the 
light, and thy just dealing as the noon day.' " * 

Balloting took place in the evening, the 
clergy voting first. On the first ballot, 35 
votes were necessary for a choice, and Dr. 
DeKoven and Dr. Hoffman each received 32. 
On the fourth ballot, the clergy elected Dr. 
DeKoven by a vote of 35, to 33 cast for Dr. 
Hoffman. 

The roll of parishes was then called for the 
lay vote. Fifteen parishes voted to approve, 
31 to disapprove, and 5 were divided. So the 
laity refused to elect James DeKoven as Bishop 
of Wisconsin. This practically ended the 
special session of the council and the question 
of the election of a Bishop went over to the 
next regular council, which met in June. 



*The quotations from Dr. DeKoven's speech are, for the 
most part, taken from his " Theological Defense," which com- 
prised his remarks afterward reduced to writing by himself. A 
stenographic report of the speech, as originally delivered, appears 
in the Sentinel of next day, and differs in no material respect 
from its written and published form. 



196 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

The war was now carried on by means of 
pamphlets. Dr. DeKoven's " Theological De- 
fense," his remarks in the council, was pub- 
lished, with the document u Principles, not 
Men," as an appendix. The Rev. Dr. Egar 
published a defense of himself and of his views, 
under the title of "The Eucharistic Contro- 
versy and the Episcopate of Wisconsin"— a 
lengthy pamphlet of 84 pages. Dr. DeKoven's 
defense was farther examined by the Rev. 
Samuel Buel, D. D., a professor in the Gen- 
eral Theological Seminary of New York, in a 
bulky theological treatise entitled " Euchar- 
istic Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Eu- 
charistic Adoration : being an Examination 
of 'A Theological Defense/ etc." The Rev. Dr. 
Adams published "Three Letters upon the 
Confessional, to James DeKoven, D. D., with 
the Resolutions of the Faculty of Nashotah, 
and a Speech upon Eucharistic Adoration, read 
before the Special Council, held in February, 
1874. By William Adams, D. D." After these 
had all been circulated, Dr. DeKoven reviewed 
and demolished them all in a paper entitled 
"The Eucharistic Controversy," published in 
The Church and The World for October, 1874. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 197 

When the regular council met in June, ex- 
citement was still at a fever heat. Dr. DeKoven 
would not permit his friends to continue to 
vote for him. At a conference of those who 
had voted for him, Dr. DeKoven named three 
clergymen, any one of whom would be perfectly 
satisfactory to him as Bishop. These were the 
Rev. John Yaughan Lewis, D. D., the Rev. Wal- 
ter Ayrault, D. D., and the Rev. John Henry 
Hobart Brown. The names of the persons 
present were then called, for their votes. Dr. 
DeKoven voted for Dr. Ayrault, but a majority 
favored the Rev. J. H. Hobart Brown, rector of 
S. John's Church, Cohoes, New York — after- 
ward Bishop of Fond du Lac. Mr. Brown had 
shortly before received and declined an urgent 
call to the rectorship of S. James' Church, Mil- 
waukee, a parish whose rector and lay deputies 
were numbered among the opponents of De- 
Koven. It was believed, therefore, that Mr. 
Brown's candidacy would unite the discordant 
elements, and so the friends of Dr. DeKoven 
resolved to support him. 

The opponents of Dr. DeKoven also held a 
conference, at which they resolved to vote for 



198 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

the Rev. Lewis A . Kemper, S. T. D., son of Bishop 
Kemper, a professor at Nashotah, and one of 
the signers of the document " Principles, not 
Men." 

When the hour for nominations came, the 
Rev. George M. Everhart, D. D., the same who 
had at the previous council nominated Dr. De- 
Koven, presented the name of the Rev. A. D. 
Cole, D. D., president of Nashotah, Dr. Falk, of 
Racine, seconding the nomination. Dr. Cole 
at once declined, and placed in nomination the 
Rev. Mr. Brown, as determined at the confer- 
ence. 

Four times, in the afternoon, did the clergy 
elect Mr. Brown, and the laity decline to con- 
firm the election. It became evident that the 
deadlock could not be broken without a mutual 
conference. Accordingly, at the opening of the 
evening session, Mr. J. P. McGregor, a deputy 
from Portage, and an opponent of DeKoven, 
with the knowledge and approbation of Dr. 
DeKoven and of his friends, as well as of the 
opposing party, moved — 

" That the special order of the day, namely, the elec- 
tion of a Bishop, be postponed, and that the Rev. Dr t 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 199 

DeKoven and the Rev. Dr. Kemper each select two 
discreet presbyters and two laymen, to form, with them- 
selves, a Committee of Conference to agree upon a candi- 
date for Bishop."* 

This resolution was passed. Dr. DeKoven 
accordingly named the Rev. A. D. Cole, D. D., 
Rev. William Bliss Ashley, D. D., Mr. J. B. Doe, 
and Mr. J. A. Helfenstein. Dr. Kemper named 
the Rev. William Adams, D. D., Rev. Wm. P. 
TenBroeck, Mr. Angus Cameron, and Mr. D. 
Worthington. 

Late in the same evening, this Committee of 
Conference reported through the Rev. Dr. Ash- 
ley, that — 

"On motion of the Rev. Dr. DeKoven, seconded by 
the Rev. Dr. Kemper, it was unanimously 

"Resolved, That this Committee recommend the Rev. 
Edward R. Welles, D. D., for the episcopate of Wiscon- 
sin."! 

Speeches of nomination of Dr. Welles were 
then made by Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Kemper. 
The ballot was taken, and 69 out of the 72 
votes of the clergy were cast for Dr. Welles. 
Of the laity, every one of the 54 parishes repre- 
sented, voted to approve. The election was 

* Journal, Diocese of Wisconsin, 1874, page 23. 
jflbid, page 27. 



200 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

then made unanimous, and the whole council 
united in singing the Gloria in Excelsis. 

Seldom has the finger of the Holy Ghost 
been more plainly visible than in the result 
of this council. The deliberations were not 
marked by a God-like spirit throughout ; they 
were painfully lacking in reverence, even in 
courtesy. But the overruling power of the 
Holy Ghost, who " presided in the councils of 
the Apostles," worked even through such a dis- 
cordant element, and the result was Wiscon- 
sin's third Bishop. 

Bishop Welles could not be called a great 
man. He was neither an eloquent preacher, a 
profound scholar, nor a great organizer. His 
was the power that comes from an inward 
purity of character ; from a sole desire to do 
the work of his Master upon earth. His first 
few years in the diocese were spent in simply 
picking up the diverse threads of its affairs. 
When he had fully mastered every situation, 
he threw himself heartily into the work of the 
Cathedral — Bishop Armitage's special legacy 
to his successor — and made that work his own. 

Frequent as were the calls on Dr. DeKoven 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 201 

for work in the Church at large, special ser- 
mons, papers, advice on an infinite variety of 
subjects, service at General Convention and on 
general Church commissions, with the daily 
round of duty at Racine College, no one was 
more attached to his Bishop and the work of 
the diocese, than was James DeKoven. He 
was perhaps the chiefest and most trusted 
counsellor and adviser of Bishop Welles. 

Before the opening of the General Conven- 
tion of 1874, several events had transpired to 
make that a session of unusual importance. 

During the years 1873 and 1874 a movement 
had been made by a few of the more radical of 
the Low-Church party, to secede from the 
Church and found a separate organization to 
be known as the "Reformed Episcopal Church." 
The Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, Dr. Cum- 
mins, and the rector of Christ Church, Chicago, 
Mr. Cheney, were the leaders of the movement 
— indeed, the only influential persons involved 
in it. A sectarian organization had been 
effected, on the basis nominally of the " Pro- 
posed Prayer Book" of 1785. The sect denied 
the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration, of 



202 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

the Apostolical Succession, of Sacramental 
Grace, of the Presence of Christ in the Euchar- 
ist, and several others of the tenets of the 
Church. Worse even than these denials, per- 
haps, the sin of schism was committed, and the 
members of the sect abandoned the communion 
of the Church. Bishop Cummins was deposed 
by the Presiding Bishop (Smith) who, being 
Bishop of Kentucky, was also his diocesan. 
Mr. Cheney was deposed in Illinois. 

When General Convention met, in October, 
1874, much apprehension was felt as to the 
possible extent of this movement. The failure 
of previous conventions to enact laws to sup- 
press Ritualism, the alleged Ritualistic prac- 
tices of DeKoven and Racine College — a charge 
utterly without foundation — and the strength 
of the Ritualistic party, as shown in the Mas- 
sachusetts and Wisconsin elections, were among 
the reasons assigned for the secession. The 
seceders were very hopeful, and made loud 
claims. The great Low-Church dioceses of Vir- 
ginia and Ohio were expected by them to with- 
draw bodily from the American Church and 
join the new sect. Pennsylvania, Kentucky 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 203 

and the South were expected to send large 
numbers of adherents. In fact, they believed 
that ultimately the whole Low-Church party 
would go with them. 

Accordingly, the deputies in 1874 went to 
General Convention in New York with the 
profound conviction that " something must be 
done." Something— anything. DeKoven must 
be put down! Ritualism must be crushed out! 

The first chance came early in the session. 
Bishop Whitehouse had died in the preceding 
August and the convention of the Diocese of 
Illinois had elected as their Bishop, the Rev. 
George Franklin Seymour, D. D., Dean of the 
General Theological Seminary. The election 
had occurred only a few days before General 
Convention met. The testimonials of the new 
Bishop-elect were presented in the House of 
Deputies on the second day of the session. 

Dr. Seymour was a classmate of Dr. De- 
Koven, and had always been his staunch friend. 
He was believed, rightly, to hold to the same be- 
liefs that DeKoven held. To elect him Bishop 
in Illinois, was to indorse DeKoven, it was said. 
Accordingly, word was passed around that Dr. 
Seymour's election must not be confirmed. 



204 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

For eight days the debate was carried on in 
secret session. Dr. DeKoven did not speak, 
yielding to the persuasions of his friends, who 
believed that his advocacy would hurt rather 
than help the cause. The result was defeat. 
The House declined to confirm Dr. Seymour's 
election, and thus a sop had been thrown to 
Reformed Episcopalianism and a blow given to 
DeKoven. It was a blow which he felt keenly, 
as it was without doubt his close friendship 
with Dr. Seymour that led to the defeat of the 
latter. Dr. Welles, Bishop-elect of Wisconsin, 
a man of entire agreement theologically with 
DeKoven and Seymour, was confirmed unani- 
mously on the motion of a deputy from Vir- 
ginia. That the defeat was intended to be per- 
sonal to DeKoven, was evident. That it was 
in the nature of a panic, is shown by the fact 
that Dr. Seymour himself was consecrated 
Bishop of Springfield less than four years later 
— an office that he still fills with great ability, 
and nobody has been "driven to Rome" in 
consequence. 

The subject of Ritualism came before the 
General Convention in the shape of a number 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 205 

of memorials from dioceses praying that some 
restrictive action would be taken to " stamp it 
out." An elaborate report from the Committee 
on Canons, included a proposed canon which 
prohibited the use of incense and crucifixes and 
certain acts of adoration of "the elements in 
the Holy Communion." That some action 
would be taken was evident. Men had come to 
convention resolved to stamp out "Ritualism" 
at any cost. 

Dr. DeKoven's speech was one of great elo- 
quence. On the question of the prohibition of 
incense he said : 

" Are we to understand that incense, symbolizing 
the pure Eucharistic offering, symbolizes false doctrine? 
Or again — and this is something more awful — when 
Aaron stood between the dead and the living with the 
censer in his hands, and the smoke of the incense was 
wafted to heaven, the people were saved ; what did he 
typify but that Eternal Son of God Who alone stands 
between the dead and the living, and Whose mediation 
for the souls of men forever ascends to the right hand 
of God ? And that ascending incense symbolized the 
atoning Sacrifice and the everlasting Mediation. And 
is this Church, then, prepared to say that the eternal 
Mediation and the awful atoning Sacrifice are false doc- 



206 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

trinesf Or, when the priest, on the great Day of Atone- 
ment, went before the Mercy Seat, and clouds of incense 
covered it, typifying the ceaseless intercession of the 
Son of God, is this Church prepared to say that such a 
use of incense symbolized false doctrines? But this canon, 
if it be passed as it stands, makes it so." 

Of Eucharistic Adoration, he said : 
"You may take away from us, if you will, every 
external ceremony. You may take away altars, super- 
altars, and lights, and incense, and vestments. You 
may take away every possible ceremony, and you may 
command us to celebrate at the altar of God without 
any external symbolism whatever. You may give us 
the most barren of all observances, and we will submit 
to you. If this Church commands us to have no cer- 
emonies, we will obey. But, gentlemen, the very mo- 
ment any one says we shall not adore our Lord present 
in the Eucharist, then from a thousand hearts will come 
the answer, 'Let me die in my own country, and be 
buried by the grave of my father and my mother !' For 
to adore Christ's Person in His Sacrament, that is the 
inalienable privilege of every Christian and Catholic 
heart. Hoio we do it, the way we do it, the ceremonies 
with which we do it, are utterly, utterly indifferent. 
The thing itself is what we plead for, and I know I should 
not plead to unkind or unfeeling hearts." 

His final appeal was a wonderful outburst 
of eloquence : 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 207 

" Mr. President, we live in troublous times, and around 
Us are all sorts of terrible questions. It does seem to 
me the day is not now to legislate on nice points of 
doctrine, or to prescribe exactly the measure of a genu- 
flexion, or the angle of inclination which can express 
an orthodox devotion. The answer to all this panic and 
all this outcry is one and one only: It is work — work 
for the cause of Christ ; work for the souls of men ; a 
fuller, deeper, more noble sense of the obligation of 
the Church, developing its powers and sending it forth 
to mould and form this nation of ours, and to give new 
life and vigor to every effort it makes for the salvation 
of men. I see the storm-cloud gathering. I see the 
lightnings flash. I hear the thunder roll afar. I hear 
the trumpet call. In my ears the bugle-blast is ringing. 
And I call you, brethren, in a time like this, not to nar- 
row-hearted legislation, but to broad, Catholic, tolerant 
charity, and to work, as men never worked before, for 
the souls of those for whom the Saviour died." * 

The canon passed ; but not until all ref- 
erence to incense and crucifixes had been 
omitted. 

That the canon, as it stands, is unconstitu- 
tional, almost no one doubts. No priest was 
ever condemned under it, no one ever disturbed 



* Debates in General Convention, 1874. 



208 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

in his devotions by its provisions. The canon 
was passed as a result of the scare of the mo- 
ment. It is as dead to-day as though it had 
been wiped out of the statute book. 

The refusal of the House of Deputies of 
General Convention to consent to the consecra- 
tion of Dr. Seymour, caused much disappoint- 
ment in Illinois. A special convention was 
held in February, 1875, to consider the next 
step. Dr. Seymour wisely refused to permit 
his name to be again used. The convention 
adopted strong resolutions of protest against 
the refusal of the House of Deputies, declared 
their warm indorsement of Dr. Seymour, and 
proceeded to elect Dr. DeKoven to the Bish- 
opric. 

When a Bishop is elected during the recess 
of General Convention, the testimonials are first 
laid before the Standing Committee of each 
diocese in the country. If approved by a ma- 
jority of these, the Bishops are then called on 
for their assent, before a Bishop may be con- 
secrated. 

A protest against his consecration was issued 
by a minority of the Illinois convention, who 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 209 

represented that Dr. DeKoven was not sound 
in the Faith ; that his consecration in Illinois, 
the centre of the Reformed Episcopal move- 
ment, would greatly strengthen that move- 
ment ; and that certain technical flaws in the 
election presented grave doubts as to its validity. 

The election of Dr. DeKoven, after Dr. Sey- 
mour had been rejected, was considered by his 
enemies outside of Illinois to be a sublime act of 
insolence on the part of that diocese. Had 
not " Ritualism " been condemned ? Why did it 
not die ? 

The contest was waged very sharply, and 
the result was long in doubt. At length it 
became evident that DeKoven would be rejected 
by the Standing Committees. The choice of the 
Diocese of Illinois was again refused, not by 
Bishops, but by the representatives of the 
clergy and laity. In order to save the diocese 
from embarrassment, Dr. DeKoven at length 
recalled his acceptance of his election, which 
had of course been contingent on the election 
being confirmed by the Church at large. His 
letter contained a lengthy and calm statement 
of his position in reply to the doctrinal objec- 
tions raised against him. 



210 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

The result was that when the Illinois Con- 
vention again met, on September 14th and 15th, 
the Rev. W. E. McLaren, D. D., was elected to 
the episcopate. 

Dr. McLaren had been in orders but little 
more than three years, having previously been 
a Presbyterian minister. He was at the time 
of his election rector of Trinity Church, Cleve- 
land, one of the oldest parishes in the Diocese 
of Ohio, which at that time was under the in- 
fluence of the extreme Low-Church wing, and 
the deputation from which had been among 
the most bitter opponents of Dr. DeKoven in 
General Convention. Dr. McLaren, however, 
was sound in the Faith, and, theologically, dif- 
fered little, if any, from Drs. DeKoven and Sey- 
mour. For all these reasons, it was felt that 
his election would not only be confirmed, but 
would also tend to unify the warring elements 
in Illinois. 

The result has been as had been anticipated. 
Dr. McLaren's election was confirmed without 
serious opposition, and the threatened danger 
of schism, of which so much had been said, 
was averted. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 211 

So the Church passed through those troub- 
lous years with the secession of only a mere 
handful to the Eeformed Episcopal schism. 
Whether the defeat of the canon on Ritualism 
and the consecration of Dr. Seymour or of Dr. 
DeKoven to the episcopate, would have in- 
creased the number of perverts, may well be 
doubted. But many true Churchmen at the 
time believed that the Church was in great 
danger, both from Ritualism and from the new 
schism. That the first was not the danger it was 
generally believed to be, is now admitted on all 
sides. The greatest champions of the Anglican 
position as opposed to that of Rome, have been 
the very men in the front of the Ritualistic 
(more properly styled the Catholic) movement. 
Of these, none has been more useful, than 
Bishop Seymour himself.* 

The panic that had passed over the Church 
now began to lessen. Men began to perceive 
the intense loyalty of the Catholic school, and 
educated persons no longer spoke of its adher- 
ents as " Romanizers." The popular craze 



* See Bishop Seymour's "What is Modern Romanism ? 



212 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

against Ritualism subsided. Other matters 
now occupied the attention of the Church. 

One such matter that began now to receive 
serious attention, was the name of the Amer- 
ican branch of the Church Catholic. 

The name " Protestant Episcopal " is open 
to very serious objections. The word Protest- 
ant is popularly supposed to mean not Catholic. 
In that sense, it is untrue as applied to the 
Church. It is undignified, as perpetuating the 
memory of the unhappy quarrel with Home, 
which, far-reaching as are the results of that 
quarrel, hardly need to be incorporated in the 
very name of the Church. It breaks the con- 
tinuity of the Church's title by introducing 
into it a new proposition — and one merely neg- 
ative at that — after fifteen hundred years of 
the Church's work. Imagine S. Paul or S. 
John, S. Polycarp, S. Athanasius or S. Augus- 
tine, posing as Protestant Episcopalians! It is 
Romish, as apparently admitting the Romish 
claims, that the communion of Rome is the 
only Catholic Church, and that all who are not 
Romanists are not Catholics. Let Rome call 
herself Protestant where she disagrees with us. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 218 

Let her protest against what she conceives to 
be error in us. But let us stand upon the dig- 
nified platform of positive Catholic truth, and 
let those who dissent from our Catholicity, 
protest if they will. 

To be sure, the name of the Church cannot 
affect or alter her identity. The Church is as 
truly Catholic as though she proclaimed it 
in her legal title. Mr. Little well says in his 
admirable "Reasons for Being a Churchman 7 ': 

" We might call overselves The Prayer-Bookers, or 
The Anti- Atheistic Ecclesiastical Church Militant here upon 
Earth, as a civil designation. It would, of course, be 
disrespectful to our Holy Mother ; but we would none 
the less continue to be the Catholic Church in the 
United States of America." * 

Bishop Welles, of Wisconsin, alluded to the 
subject in his conciliar address in 1877 — proba- 
bly the first to take official notice of it. He 
said, after suggesting a change of name : 

" Some of the wisest Bishops of old dioceses, who 
desire a return to a simpler style of nomenclature, as 
'The Church in the United States of America,' will 
undoubtedly move in this matter, and I think it would 



* Little's " Reasons for Being a Churchman," page 176. 



214 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

be well for our own diocese, for such I think is the 
mind of the diocese, to put herself on record as favor- 
ing such a movement, leaving the details of the plan to 
be shaped by the wisdom of the General Convention." * 

The matter was brought before the council 
by the Rev. E. R. Ward, one of the Cathedral 
staff, and a clergyman of more than usual 
erudition and ability. Mr. Ward offered the 
following : 

" Whereas, The American Branch of the Holy 
Church Universal includes within her membership, all 
baptized persons in this land ; and 

" Whereas, The various bodies of professing Chris- 
tians, owing to her first legal title, do not realize that 
the Church known in law as the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, is in very deed and truth, the American Branch 
of the One Catholic Church of God ; therefore be it 

" Resolved, That the Diocese of Wisconsin, sympathiz- 
ing with the efforts being made to remove the words 
* Protestant Episcopal ' from the legal title of the Church, 
do request its deputies to the General Convention, to 
aid any and all efforts looking towards the restoration 
of her Catholic and Apostolic title as the Church in 
America." t 

* Journal of the Diocese of Wisconsin, 1877, page 35. 
\Ibid, page xxv. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 215 

There was some discussion on the matter, 
and the resolution passed finally took the fol- 
lowing shape, drawn up by Dr. DeKoven him- 
self: 

" Resolved, That the deputies to General Convention 
from this diocese be requested to ask of the General 
Convention the appointment of a Constitutional Com- 
mission, to which the question of a change in the legal 
title of the Church, as well as similar questions, may 
be referred." * 

The General Convention of 1877 met iu Bos- 
ton, and was marked by less bitter controversy 
and a more friendly spirit, than any that had 
been held for many years. 

The past, however, had not been forgotten. 
New York had responded to Dr. Seymour's 
former defeat, by electing him as one of the 
deputies from that diocese. Dr. DeKoven sat, 
as previously, in the Wisconsin delegation. 
His clerical colleagues were Drs. Cole and 
Adams, of Nashotah, and Dr. John Fulton, 
rector of S. Paul's Church, Milwaukee, who had 
recently come into the diocese, and who had 
sat in the General Convention of 1874 as a 



*Ibid, page xxv. 



216 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

deputy from Alabama. At the organization of 
the house, the Rev. Alexander Burgess, D. D., 
of Massachusetts, was elected president, and 
the Rev. Charles L. Hutchins, of the same dio- 
cese, secretary. Dr. Burgess was the one who 
had nominated Dr. DeKoven for the Bishopric 
of Massachusetts, in 1873, and Mr. Hutchins had 
been one of his supporters in the same election. 
It was clear, that Dr. DeKoven and Dr. Sey- 
mour were vindicated. 

On the third day of the session, Dr. De- 
Koven presented the Wisconsin resolutions 
relating to a Constitutional Commission and the 
change of name, and moved their reference to 
the appropriate committee — the usual course 
taken on matters presented as memorials from 
dioceses. So great was the opposition that even 
the courtesy of referring the matter to a com- 
mittee would have been refused by some ; but a 
better sentiment prevailed, and the resolutions 
were referred. 

The great debate was on the twelfth day of 
the session. The committee had reported that 
the appointment of a Constitutional Commis- 
sion was inexpedient. A lay deputy from New 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 217 

York (the Hon. Hamilton Fish, LL. D.), who 
spoke in behalf of the committee, summarized 
the convictions of the committee in the follow- 
ing terse paragraph : 

" Of the two subjects (a change of name and a Con- 
stitutional Commission), I think the one is as much too 
late as the other is too early. It is too late, sir, for this 
Church to undertake to change the name of ' Protestant 
Episcopal.' (Applause.) That name came to us before 
our Constitution came. It was inherited. It is inher- 
ent. It is fixed in the hearts of the people of this 
Church. Sir, if we are not Protestant, we are nothing. 
It is too late, therefore, to consider that question of 
change. Whatever might have been expedient at the 
first, we cannot now turn the dial backward."* 

In 1886, only nine years later, a resolution 
to expunge the words " Protestant Episcopal " 
from the title-page of the Prayer Book, obtain- 
ed a vote of nearly two-thirds of the clergy, but 
failed by non-concurrence of the laity. Had 
the dial begun to turn backward ? i 



* The Churchman, Daily Edition, 1877, page 129. 

f The last test vote on the subject, was that taken in 1886. 
In 1892, a lay deputy from the Diocese of Milwaukee, moved a 
similar resolution ; but it was hampered by a constitutional ques- 
tion as to the legality of a change in the title page by the action 
of one convention, and so the vote was in no sense a test on tLe 
subject matter of the resolution. 



218 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Dr. DeKoven's remarks in favor of a Consti- 
tutional Commission to adjust some of the ine- 
qualities of the Constitution, were very lengthy 
and were characterized by his usual ability. 
Twice was his time unanimously extended. 
Only once did he refer to the change of name, 
and that briefly: 

" I hope that we may call ourselves ' Protestant 
Episcopal' just so long as it actually represents our 
condition. Let us be true, whatever eke we are. It 
may be in accordance with our state of mind to give a 
name to our Church which represents one feature in our 
manifold organization, and which represents one feature 
alone. It may suit our present condition to describe 
ourselves by that process whereby, in the course of its 
history, the Anglican Church washed its face ! That 
may suit our present condition ; but I believe that the 
day will come when this Church will demand, not that 
an accident of its organization should represent it to the 
world, but that its immortal lineage, which dates back 
to the time of our Saviour's sending the Holy Ghost 
upon His Church, shall truly represent it."* 

The final vote on the change of name was 
on the resolution reported by the committee: 



* Ibid, page 127. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 219 

" Resolved, That no change be made in the name of 
this Church, as used in the Constitution." 

The roll of dioceses is always called alpha- 
betically to record a vote by orders. When, 
in this case, Alabama was called at the head of 
the roll, three clergy voted aye, and one, the 
Kev. George H. Hunt, voted nay. All through 
the rest of the long roll not another negative 
vote was cast until Wisconsin was reached, at 
the foot of the list, when Dr. DeKoven and Dr. 
Cole voted nay. Dr. Fulton voted aye, and Dr. 
Adams was not present when the vote was 
taken. Not a single layman voted against the 
committee's resolution, though Mr. Judd, of Il- 
linois, explained that he favored the main prin- 
ciple, but was opposed to change at the present, 
time. He need not have hesitated to vote ac- 
cording to his principles — the change would 
not then be made ! Dr. DeKoven's staunchest ; 
friends forsook him at the vote. Even Dr.. 
Seymour, who had been so closely associated 
with DeKoven in the popular mind, voted nay. 
So did his associates in the New York delega- 
tion, Drs. Dix and Cady. So did the Illinois 
delegation, who had been so indignant at the 



220 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

rejection of DeKoven when elected as their 
Bishop — Drs. Chase, Harris, Locke and Leffing- 
well. So did the Massachusetts delegation, 
part of whom had tried so hard to elect De- 
Koven in Massachusetts, including Dr. Burgess, 
who had nominated DeKoven for Bishop, and 
had been elected President of the House of 
Deputies as DeKoven's friend. So did every 
one else, who believed in the change— or was 
supposed to — as thoroughly as did DeKoven. 
Only Dr. Cole was excepted — brave, sturdy, 
grand Dr. Cole ! Wisconsin made a grand con- 
fession in General Convention that day. It 
was establishing a principle in the face of al- 
most unanimous opposition. 

Honor be to the clerical deputy from Alabama 
who voted nay at the start ! Perhaps he voted 
so because he believed it to be right, and did 
not know that others would vote on expediency! 

Defeated again ! Defeated almost unani- 
mously ! But DeKoven's strength was not in 
his immediate successes. He was pre-emi- 
nently a leader. If others did not follow, it 
did not cause him to draw back. He was twenty 
years ahead of his colleagues. Some have not 
yet caught up. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 221 

Other matters of legislation in which Dr. 
DeKoven was especially interested at this time, 
were a canon on Sisterhoods, which, though 
nominally intended to help them, really cast 
upon them such restrictions as to be a great 
hindrance ; and permission to use the new 
English lectionary for three years, on trial. 
The former was killed, as he desired it should 
be, and the latter was adopted nearly unani- 
mously. 

On the whole, the spirit of the General Con- 
vention of 1877 was very good indeed. It was 
the last one that DeKoven ever attended. His 
friend, the late Dr. John Henry Hopkins, says 
of him at this time : 

" In walking from our hospitable quarters to General 
Convention he would take my arm, and now and then, 
notwithstanding his smiling face and cheerful talk, I 
felt an uncontrollable nervous twitch in his arm. On 
speaking to him about it he said he could not help it ; 
and then, in language I can never forget, he said that 
no one could realize the weight of the burden that was 
perpetually upon his mind and heart and conscience. 
The entire work of Racine College rested upon him — 
educational, religious, disciplinary and financial. And 
besides this was the share he had been driven to take 



222 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

in the affairs of the diocese and the general controver- 
sies of the Church. ' God alone knows,' said he, ' how 
long I shall be able to stand it !' It was not long ; this 
was his last General Convention ; but when, at last, the 
cord of life, so long overstrained, snapped in an instant, 
i, at least, was not surprised."* 

We are approaching now to the last days of 
our saint and hero. His fame was now second 
to none in the whole American Church. He 
had declined a call to important work in Trin- 
ity parish, New York; to the rectorship of the 
Church of the Advent, Boston; to the first par- 
ish in Cincinnati, and, only the day before his 
death, he wrote a letter declining a call to S. 
Mark's Church, Philadelphia. 

His last diocesan or general work was at 
the Wisconsin council of 1878, which was post- 
poned until November by reason of Bishop 
Welles' absence from the country, enforced by 
ill health. 

The diocese of Wisconsin was suffering from 
a violent controversy in its midst, over the 
establishment of the Cathedral. We have 



* In a series of short Reminiscences of DeKoven, published 
in the Nashotah Scholiast in 1885, page 151. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 228 

already seen that the first action toward secur- 
ing a Cathedral for the diocese, had been taken 
in the latter years of the administration of 
Bishop Kemper.* It was Bishop Armitage, 
however, who commenced the active work of 
developing the Cathedral, and who purchased 
the present Cathedral structure. On Bishop 
Welles' succession to the episcopate, he had, 
after learning by observation all that the 
movement meant, thrown himself actively 
into the Cathedral work. The matter had sev- 
eral times been warmly discussed at the coun- 
cil, but there had been no legislation on the 
subject. The administration of the Cathedral 
had been entrusted by the Bishop, under his 
own direction, to the Rev. Erastus W. Spald- 
ing, D. D., an able canonist, organizer and 
administrator, afterward its first Dean. The 
opposition to this movement was intense, par- 
ticularly on the part of the old established 
parishes in Milwaukee. Time has shown that 
the contention against the Cathedral as tend- 
ing to infringe on the rights of parishes, was 
unfounded ; but at the time of which we speak, 
there was a very bitter feeling. 

* See page 120. 



224 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

During the Bishop's absence, a pamphlet 
was circulated bearing the signatures of the 
lay deputies to the council from three parishes 
in Milwaukee, addressed to their several rectors, 
enquiring their views as to the cathedral. In 
reply to this, was issued by the rectors of the 
same parishes, a pamphlet bearing the title of 
" The See Principle and the Cathedral Church 
in the Diocese of Wisconsin." This document 
arraigned the whole Cathedral movement and 
its supporters, chief of whom was the Bishop, 
in the strongest terms. 

Bishop Welles was essentially a man of 
peace. His was not the forte of a controver- 
sialist. The attack on his work, which he could 
but feel to be an attack upon himself, coming 
as the culmination of a conflict of several years, 
was a heavy blow which his sensitive nature 
felt bitterly. He declined, however, to make 
any reply in person, though he considered the 
Cathedral movement very fully in his annual 
address to the council of that year. 

It was then that Dr. DeKoven performed his 
last public work. With the knowledge and 
approval of the Bishop,* DeKoven took the 

*See Burleson's Memoir of Bishop Welles, page xlii. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 225 

floor and defended the Bishop completely from 
the attack against him. Says Mr. Bnrleson of 
this speech of DeKoven ; s : 

" It was an unsparing exposure of misquotations 
from history, misconceptions of primitive usage, and 
malicious subtlety in logical deduction, contained in the 
pamphlet. It defended the Bishop against the charge 
of the diversion of means from the missionary staff, and 
enumerated and sustained the principle that a Cathedral 
church, in its inception and work, must be to the fullest 
extent diocesan in its character, and not merely urban 
or local."* 

It was a great strain on Dr. DeKoven, for 
his work was nearly at an end. 

"On the morning of the 21st," continues Mr. Burle- 
son, "he (DeKoven) rapped at the door of the Bishop's 
sleeping room "f and asked permission to enter. The 
Bishop, who had not yet arisen, gave the permission. 
The Doctor entered and said : 'Bishop, I did not close 
my eyes last night. This strain and worry is more than 
I am able to bear. I must go home. I do not believe 
that I shall be able to come to a council again.' The 
words seemed almost prophetic, for before the next 



*Ibid. 

f Bishop Welles lived simply at the Cathedral clergy house, 
occupying a single room, as did the other Cathedral clergy. 



226 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

council he was, in the words which he used concerning 
Bishop Armitage, in answer to the Rectors' pamphlet, 
'at rest, where the Church is no longer militant; in 
Paradise there are no parishes, and only one cathedral, 
which needs no candle, neither light of the sun, because 
of the resplendent radiance of the Lamb without spot 
or blemish.' "* 

During the winter following, Dr. DeKoven ap- 
peared to be regaining his health, and it seemed 
as though he would be restored to his former use- 
fulness ; but an accident occurred to him while 
in Milwaukee, late in the winter. He slipped 
and fell, on an icy sidewalk on Cass street, 
breaking his leg. It was a serious matter. He 
was removed, after a little, to his home in Ra- 
cine, but only to die. On the 19th day of March, 
1879, he breathed his last. Truly, the Church 
Militant mourned her most powerful champion! 

On the 22d he was laid to rest, in the shadow 
of the chapel of the college he so dearly loved. 
A driving snowstorm did not prevent the at- 
tendance of many friends, whose grief was as 
though they had lost a family friend. There 
were three celebrations of the Holy Communion, 



* Ilid, page xliii. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 227 

at the last of which Bishop Welles was cele- 
brant, making of it a solemn requiem service. 
The funeral service was read at eleven o'clock. 
Eight Bishops, a large number of other clergy 
and of the laity, a committee of the Legislature 
of the State of Illinois, the Mayor and City 
Council of Racine, and " his boys," the students 
of the college, were among those gathered to- 
gether. Never before or since, perhaps, in all 
the history of the American Church, was such 
a concourse gathered at the burial of a priest. 

His death attracted wide notice. The State 
Legislature of Illinois adopted resolutions of 
mourning and sent a committee to attend the 
funeral. Similar resolutions were adopted by 
the Wisconsin Legislature. Seldom in America 
did a political body ever take action on the 
death of a clergyman who lived in the same 
State. Never before, it is believed, did such a 
body take such action for a clergjmian resident 
in another State. In Racine, the day was made 
one of public mourning by proclamation of 
the Mayor. So was James DeKoven esteemed 
by his fellow citizens. 

A memorial service was held at All Saints' 



228 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Cathedral, Milwaukee — the same Cathedral 
which he had so strongly defended so shortly 
before — during the session of the council of 
1879, in June. The preacher was the Rev. 
Fayette Durlin. From the remarkable sermon 
then preached, we extract the following :* 

" But we do not need his learning and his eloquence 
nearly so much as we need him — the ennobling, elevat- 
ing, inspiring influence of his personality — his living, 
speaking, loving presence. Oh ! we are bereaved indeed 
in the loss of this, for where shall we look for its like ? 
Who can fill this great void? 

" Yes, but remember we did not know him, never 
should have known him, excepting for his defeat, and 
defeat, and defeat. The world in its blindness would 
not, could not, cannot let such a man alone. He is 
sure to be assailed on all sides and with all the weapons 
of its savage warfare. Oh ! how the blind giant will 
rage against the unresisting meekness, and purity, and 
love, and holiness of such an one ! He won a great 
victory, and he won it as all the saints have and must, 
by and through the world's victory over them. 

" But, you say, the world had no quarrel with James 
DeKoven, did not oppose him, did not fight against him, 
did not defeat him ; the Church did that. He suffered 



* The sermon was printed in the Nashotah Scholiast for July 
and August, 1885. 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 229 

in the house of his friends. Yes, but the weapons that 
were used against him, were the weapons of this world. 
They were forged in its fires, sharpened on its files, and 
wielded with the strength of its own vindictiveness." 

Seven years passed by. In 1886, the General 
Convention met in Chicago, the first time it had 
ever gathered in the West. On the 16th of Oc- 
tober, that august body made a special visit to 
Racine College, by invitation of the warden, the 
Rev. Albert Zabriskie Gray, S. T. D. Eighteen 
Bishops and a large number of clerical and lay 
deputies, many of them accompanied by their 
wives, made up the party. One could not fail 
to compare the gathering, at the life-work and 
the tomb of DeKoven, with that at shrines of 
old, to which saintly pilgrims journeyed to offer 
their prayers. 

Said Dr. Gray, in welcoming the guests : 

" And lastly, there is another welcome — let me speak 
it with bowed head and reverent breath. I welcome you 
in the name of him beneath whose portrait I stand ; in 
the name of one who loved you all and the dear Church 
which you represent ; in the name of one who labored 
with you, as he labored for us, and died in the holy 
cause of Catholic education; in the name of one whose 



230 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

remains sleep in peace beneath the shadow of our chan- 
cel ; in the sainted name of James DeKoven, I welcome 
you to his loved Racine. 1 ' 

The Bishop of New Jersey (Scarborough) 
said, in replying : 

" There are two shrines — one on this side, one on 
the other side of the water — which always appeal to the 
hearts of Churchmen. One is the shrine of John Keble, 
in England; and the other is the shrine of James De- 
Koven, in America." (Applause.) 

The Mayor of Racine, the Hon. James R. 
Doolittle, also referred to DeKoven, in these 
words : 

" I have lived by the side of this institution when it 
was under the control and direction of Dr. DeKoven, 
that man most extraordinary among all teachers (ap- 
plause), having a power over young men which I have 
never seen equalled by any professor, in my life." 

It was a wonderful scene to one who remem- 
bered the past — the General Convention doing 
homage to DeKoven, and gathering around his 
tomb. Ask, if you will, where was DeKoven's 
secret power, that such things were come to 
pass ? 



JAMES DeKOVEN. 231 

Six years more passed by. In 1892, the sec- 
ond successor of Bishop Welles in the episco- 
pate of Wisconsin, the Rt. Rev. I. L. Nicholson, 
S. T. D., in his annual address to the council, 
speaking in the hall adjoining the Cathedral, in 
Milwaukee, the same Cathedral in which, eight- 
een years before, DeKoven had stood to make 
his immortal defense, and yet had been de- 
feated, said : 

" Once James DeKoven was thought, in the judg- 
ment of a certain council of this diocese, not fit to be a 
Bishop in the Church of God. Perhaps no more pain- 
ful wound was ever inflicted upon a great and wonder- 
ful and almost majestic soul. All the more remarkable 
was that action, when since that day, three men, all of 
lesser light and smaller influence, but all following 
exactly in the same theological lines of DeKoven, have 
been elected and have been counted as fit ! One of them 
speaks to you this moment, feeling himself to be so 
infinitely beneath the standard of that great master in 
Israel — one who feels himself as not fit even to unloose 
the latchet of DeKoven's shoes ! Yet — it seems almost 
a marvel — you now call him fit, and welcome him to 
your midst as your leader and Bishop ! Surely, the 
less longs to be blessed of the greater ! And I do not 
know of any higher privilege, any loftier pleasure, that 
can fall to me in my future work in this diocese of 



232 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

Milwaukee, than that which now comes to me, to speak 
again, and speak aloud, for Racine College ; and plead 
for its restoration, even for its permanent endowment. 
Let us work for this end, and make our reparations, 
around DeKoven's tomb, for the deed that once was 
wrongly done. I doubt not, some blight came upon 
this diocese, because of that madly partisan deed — and 
the blight is only now recovering. We will together 
make our reparations, and hope and pray some day to 
see DeKoven's great Memorial where it should be, 
where his large soul and prophetic eye saw it to be, the 
great Church University in our teeming Northwest." 

And what more ? He, the greatest of Amer- 
ican Churchmen, lies beneath the shadow of the 
chapel of the college that was to him so dear. 
But if you would see his memorial, look upon 
the Church to-day. See the new life in her, 
everywhere. See the increased reverence in 
services, the more frequent celebrations of the 
Holy Eucharist everywhere, and behold the 
vindication of DeKoven, as he stood like ada- 
mant in 1871 and 1874. See the Church in Wis- 
consin and in Illinois, grand in her own true 
conception of her Catholicity, and behold De- 
Koven vindicated by time, as he stood when in 



JAMES DEKOVEN. 233 

the Cathedral of Milwaukee he defended himself 
in 1874, and again to the Churchmen of Illinois, 
by letter, when he had been rejected, in 1875. 
See the increased vote to discard the shameful 
note of protestantism from the Church's name ; 
and then see the apologetic report on the same 
subject, and the large vote favoring the change, 
in 1886, and behold DeKoven vindicated, as, al- 
most alone, with a practically unanimous vote 
against him, he stood in 1877. See the episco- 
pate of Milwaukee, crowned with its present 
leader in sound Catholic Churchmanship, and 
its Cathedral, the centre from which the Cath- 
olic idea of true worship is exemplified, and be- 
hold DeKoven vindicated, as he stood in 1879 
and defended his Bishop and his Bishop's Cathe- 
dral against the malignant assaults of men who 
would have wrecked both. Scan all these signs 
of the times, and answer the question, was De- 
Koven defeated ? Or was his defeat but the 
first skirmish in the great battle which was to 
come ? 

Saints are not developed in a day. It takes 
a lifetime of fashioning in God's moulds, to form 
the saintly character. Neither does the close 



234 SOME AMERICAN CHURCHMEN. 

view of men reveal true sanctity. It is like a 
grand, large painting in oil, which requires some 
distance in which to behold it in the true rela- 
tion of its parts. More truly, human sanctity is 
like a planet shining steadily in God's great 
firmament ; which, could we behold it at close 
range, would be but as the material organism of 
this earth ; but, viewed in the starry heavens 
from afar, it shines out with a brilliantly re- 
flected light from the sun. So the saintly life 
is not most perfectly viewed by those close to it, 
but by those who come after, and who behold it 
irradiated and encircled with a halo, from the 
immense splendour of the Sun of Righteousness 
Himself. 

Thus may it be truly said of James DeKoven, 
as it was said of a saint of old : 

"He was not that Light, but was sent to 
bear witness of that Light." 



INDEX 



OF 



Persons Mentioned in this Book, 



Adams, Rev. Wm., D. D., 117, 139, 143, 144, 146, 155, 162, 183, 

196, 199, 215, 219. 
Armitage, Bishop, 120, 121, 123, 173, 174, 175, 200, 223. 
Ashley, Lord, 95. 

Ashley, Rev. Wm. B., D. D., 177, 199. 
Atkinson, Bishop, 107. 
Ayrault, Rev. Walter, D. D., 197. 
Batterson, Rev. H. G., D. D., 47. 
Beers, Rev. H. W., D. D., 162. 
Berkeley, Bishop, 51. 
Bexley, Lord, 56, 63. 
Booth, "General," 137. 
Bowen, Bishop, 94. 
Breck, James Lloyd, 139-156, 158. 
Brown, Rt. Rev. J. H. H., D. D., 157, 197, 198. 
Brown ell, Bishop, 65, 66, 100, 105. 
Brunot, Hon. Felix R., 100. 
Buel, Rev. Samuel, D. D., 196. 
Burgess, Rt. Rev. Alex., D. D., 173, 216, 220. 
Burgess, Rt. Rev. George, D. D., 83. 
Burleson, Rev. S. S., 225. 
Burnet, Bishop, 132. 

235 



236 INDEX OF PERSONS 

Butler, Bishop, 51. 

Byles, Matthew, 16,17. 

Cadle, Rev. Richard F., 114, 141, 142, 144, 145. 

Cady, Rev. P. K., D. D., 219. 

Cameron, Hon. Angus, 199. 

Chase, Rt. Rev. Philander, D. D., 53-64, 96, 110, 153, 154, 156. 

Chase, Rev. Samuel, D. D., 61, 62, 220. 

Cheney, Rev. Mr., 201, 202. 

Claggett, Bishop, 19, 27, 39, 42. 

Clarkson, Bishop, 168. 

Clay, Henry, 56. 

Cole, Rev. A. D., D. D , 117, 152, 155, 158, 193, 198, 199, 215, 219, 220. 

Colenso, Bishop, 108. 

Columbus, Christopher, 156. 

Coxe, Bishop, 107. 

Croes, Bishop, 74. 

Croswell, Rev. Wm., D. D., 67, 74. 

Cummins, Bishop, 201, 202. 

DeKoven, Rev. James, D. D., 117, 125, 156, 157-234. 

DeLancey, Bishop, 91. 

Dix, Rev. Morgan, D. D., 219. 

Doane, George Hobart, 87. 

Doane, Rt. Rev. George W., 65-88, 89, 92, 95, 97, 156. 

Doane, Rt. Rev. W. C, D. D., 72. 

Doe, James B., 199. 

Doolittle, Hon. James R., 230. 

Duch£, Rev. Dr., 40. 

Durlin, Rev. Fayette, 228. 

Eastburn, Bishop, 173. 

Egar, Rev. John H., D. D., 182, 183, 196. 

Elliott, Rt. Rev. Stephen, D. D., 105. 

Everhart, Rev. Geo. M., D. D , 177, 198. 

Falk, Rev. Alex., D. D., 177, 198. 

Fish, Hon. Hamilton, 217. 

Fulton, Rev. John, D. D., 215, 219. 

Gadsden, Bishop, 141. 

Gambler, Lord, 56. 



MENTIONED IN THIS BOOK. 237 

Gardiner, Rev, Dr., 73. 

Gear, Rev. Mr., 147. 

Gray, Rev. Albert Z., D. D., 229. 

Griffith, Rev. David, 25, 26. 

Griswold, Bishop, 40, 62. 93, 94. 

Haff, Rev. F. R M 162. 

Haight, Rev. Benj. I., D. D., 173. 

Hallam, Rev. Isaac, 113. 

Harris, Rt. Rev. S. S., D. D., 220. 

Helfenstein, Mr. J. A., 199. 

Henni, Bishop, 190. 

Hill, George, 115. 

Hoffman, Rev. E. A., D. D., 176, 195. 

Hook, Dean, 77, 78. 

Hobart, Bishop, 28, 29-52, 55, 65, 66, 67, 69, 74, 90, 96, 109, 153. 

Hobart, Rev. J. H. 2d, 139, 141, 145, 146. 

Hodges, Rev. J. S. B., D. D., 157. 

Hopkins, Bishop, 75, 81, 89-108, 163. 

Hopkins, Rev. J. H., D. D. 2d, 221. 

Hull, Rev. Lemuel B., 144. 

Hunt, Rev. George H., 219. 

Hutchins, Rev. Charles L., 216. 

Ives, Bishop, 45. 

Jarvis, Bishop, 16, 39, 40. 

Jones, Rev. Cave, 41, 42. 

Judd, S. Corning, 219. 

Keble, Rev. John, 51, 74, 94, 230. 

Keene, Rev. David, D. D., 152. 

Kemper, Bishop, 62, 77, 91, 102, 106, 109-124, 126, 141, 142, 146, 

147,148,158,223. 
Kemper, Rev. Lewis A., D. D., 117, 176, 187, 198, 199. 
Ken, Bishop, 51. 
Kenyon, Lord, 56. 
Kerfoot, Bishop, 128, 141. 
Kilgour, Bishop, 15. 
Kip, Bishop, 151, 153. 
Knight, Bishop, 157. 



238 INDEX OF PERSONS 

Lance, Rev. L. C, 157. 

Lay, Bishop, 107. 

Learning, Rev. Jere, D. D., 12. 

Lee, Bishop, 165. 

Lee, Genl. Robt. E., 104. 

Lefflngwell, Rev. C. W., D. D., 220. 

Lewis, Rev. J. V., D. D., 197. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 99, 156. 

Linn, Rev. Dr., 32. 

Little, Rev. A. W., 213. 

Locke, Rev. Clinton, D. D., 160, 220. 

Lowth, Bishop, 13. 

Madison, Bishop, 19, 27, 39. 

McConnell, Rev. S. D., D. D., 40. 

McCoskry, Bishop, 98, 102. 

McGregor, J. P., 198. 

Mcllvaine, Bishop, 58, 75, 83, 89, 93, 99, 102, 103, 110. 

McLaren, Bishop, 210. 

Meade, Bishop, 83, 91. 

Merrick, Rev. Jno. Austin, 147. 

Miles, James W., 139, 141. 

Moore, Archbishop, 27. 

Moore, Rt. Rev. Benj., D. D., 30, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45. 

Moore, Rt. Rev. R. C, D. D., 42. 

Muhlenberg, Rev. W. A., D. D., 73, 125-138, 139, 140, 141, 153 r 

154, 187. 
Newman, John Henry, 94, 96, 129. 
Nicholson, Rt. Rev. I. L., S. T. D., 231. 
Norton, Rev. John N., D. D., 57. 
Onderdonk, Rt. Rev. B. T., D. D., 80, 81, 96, 140. 
Onderdonk, Rt. Rev. H. U., D. D., 69, 75, 81, 91, 92, 95, 109, 141, 142. 
Osbaldeston, Bishop, 10. 
Otey, Bishop, 45, 106, 111, 112, 142. 
Paddock, Rt. Rev. B. H., D. D., 173. 
Park, Rev. Roswell, D. D., 158, 159. 
Parke, Rev. Robt. N., 177, 178. 
Parker, Rev. Samuel, D. D , 16. 



MENTIONED IN THIS BOOK. 239 

Parker, Rev. Stevens, D. D., 157. 

Petrie, Rt. Rev. Arthur, 15. 

Phillimore, Sir Robert, 108. 

Pinching, Rev. Mr., 112. 

Polk, Bishop, 105. 

Porter, Rev. Mr., 143. 

Potter, Rt. Rev. Alonzo, D. D., 65, 104. 

Provoost, Bishop, 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47. 

Pusey, Rev. E. B., D. D., 78, 94, 125, 129, 183. 

Richey, Rev. Thomas, D. D., 157. 

Rogers, Mrs. Mary A., 130. 

Rosse, Lady, 56, 62. 

Scarborough, Bishop, 230. 

Seabuky, Bishop, 9-20, 21, 22, 23,24, 25. 27, 28, 30, 51. 

Seymour, Bishop, 157, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 219. 

Seymour, Horatio, 99, 101. 

Sharp, Bishop, 15. 

Shelton, Rev. Dr., 143. 

Skinner, Bishop, 15. 

Smith, Bishop, 75, 89, 93, 102, 202. 

Smith, Rev. Geo. W., D. D., 59. 

Spalding, Rev. Edward B., 178. 

Spalding, Rev. Erastus W., D. D., 223. 

TenBroeck, Rev. Wm. P., 176, 199. 

Thomas, Bishop (of Lincoln), 10. 

Thompson, Rt. Rev. H. M., D. D., 117. 

Tillotson, Bishop, 40. 

Upfold, Bishop, 66. 

VanBokkelen, Rev. Dr., 127. 

Vinton, Rev. A., D. D., 170. 

Warburton, Bishop, 51. 

Ward, Rev. E. R., 214. 

Washington, George, 11. 

Welles, Bishop, 199, 200, 201, 204, 213, 222, 223, 224, 225. 

Whipple, Bishop, 149. 

White, Bishop, 18, 19, 21-28, 29, 36,39, 40, 47, 90, 91, 93, 109, 126. 

Whitehouse, Bishop, 203. 



240 INDEX OF PERSONS MENTIONED. 

Whittingham, Bishop, 81,99, 116, 140, 165. 

Wilcoxsen, Rev. Timothy, 147. 

Wilkinson, Rev. John, 187. 

Williams, Eleazer, 44. 

Williams, Rt. Rev. John, D. D., 157. 

Wilmer, Bishop, 107, 168. 

Wingfield, Bishop, 153. 

Worthington, D., 199. 

Young, Bishop, 168. 



HI 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 898 778 3 



